MANIMEKHALAI
IN ITS
HISTORICAL SETTING
BY
Rao Bahadur
S. KRISHNASWAMI AIYANGAR, M.A., Hony, Ph.D.,
Professor of Indian History and Archaeology , University of Madras.
Reader^ Calcutta University, Honorary Correspondent of the
Archaeological Department of the Government of India.
Cfc. dfc. dfc.
9
LONDON
LUZAC & Co.
46 GjRKAT RUSSELI S'filEET, W.C.l.
PRINTKD IN INDIA
BY GEORGE KENNETH
AT THE DIOCESAN PRESS, VEPERY, MADRAS
1928-C3924
I
INSCRIBED
WITH A FATHER’S AFFECTION
TO
THE MEMORY OF
JAYALAKSHMI
WHO DIED
ON HER FOURTH BIRTH DAY
2nd JANUARY, 1928.
#
PREFACE
The study of Manimekhalai presented in the following
pages was intended to be delivered as the ninth of my
courses of special lectures at the Madras University
in the last term of the acatiemic year 1925-26, but
was held over as some points required further study.
The course was ultimately delivered in March and April
of the current year rather later than usual in the academic
year to suit the exigent;ies of other University fixtures.
This classic and its twin, the ^ilappadhikaram, formed
part of my study in connection with the investigations on
the age of the Tamil ^angam, which was undertaken at
the instance of the late Mr. L. C. Innes, a retired
Judge of the Madras High Court and an ex- Vice-Chan-
cellor of the University of Madras, in the early years of
the century. The first fruit of this study was published
as the Augustan Age of Tamil Literature, the first
constructive effort on: my part to solve this problem on
which a few remarks and criticisms were made, in a paper
on the Age of Kamban written by the esteemed scholar
above mentioned, in the pages of the Asiatic Quarterly
for the year 1898. The Augustan Age of Tamil Lite-
rature contains matter taken both from the Silappadhi-
karam and Manimekhalai. This naturally led to »a
considerable amount of criticism as to how far these two
works, distinct from the various collections generally
known as the Sangam collections, could be regarded as
Sangam works, directly or indirectly. The late Mr.
V. Venkayya, Epigraphist to the Government of India,
was willing to admit that the age of the Sangam was the
PREFACE
viii
f
second century A.D., but was in doubt whether these
two works could be regarded as belonging to that
collection. Mr. K. V. Subramania Aiyar of the
Department of Epigraphy, took a similar line and wished
to draw a distinction between the Sangam works as such,
and these romantic poems. The matter, therefore,
required further investigation, and I have had to re-
conside'r the whole question both from the point of view
of the Sangam works themselves, of which two or three
important collections had become accessible to me, some
in print and some in manuscript. My further study of
this subject was incorporated in a course of lectuies
delivered before the University, constituting the second of
the Series, Beginrdngs of South Indian History, which
was published in book form in 1918.
In the course of work ranging over a score of years on
this particular classic, books XXVII, XXIX and XXX
remained but little used as a specific item of investigation
for lack of leisure for the subsidiary studies that that inves-
tigation would have involved. In the course of a contro-
versy, however, as to the actual date of the Sangam in
which my late esteemed friend, Mr. L. D. Swamikannu
Pillai had joined issue on astronomical grounds based on
poem 1 1 of the Paripadal, a newly published Sangam
work, the suggestion that the philosophical systems of the
Manimekhalai may be usefully studied was made by Pro-
fessor Jacobi of Bonn in a letter that he wrote to me in
May i' 922. I took up the question then and have been at
work at intervals when current University work permitted.
My first idea was to get a translation of these chapters
made for publication in the Indian Antiquary with a view
to stimulate discussion on the question. My friend.
Professor C. S. Srinivasachari of the Pachaiyappa’s
College, undertook to study the chapters and make a
PREFACE
translation of them, and brought his manuscript to be
annotated and published in the Indian Antiquary me.
Notwithstanding the trouble that he took not only by
himself alone, but even with the assistance of one or two '
other scholars (the late Mr. Kanakasundaram Pillai and
another), it struck me that that kind of translation would
not serve the purpose which I had in mind. I had there-
fore to let the matter lie over till I could attempt it* myself
with adequate preparation in»the subsidiary studies as a
necessary pre-requisite. I took up the question and have
been at it continuously for the last three years more or
less, amidst other work. The result is published in the
following lectures. •
The lectures themselves constitute the first part of the
work. Then there is a slightly abridged translation of the
whole of the classic so as to give an idea, of the narrative
and the setting, to the reader unacquained with Tamil.
In translating this part, I have had it before me all the
time to give the reader as much of an idea of the poem as
a translation could at all give. I have omitted no
material point and even attempted to keep the tone of the
original to the best of my ability. The three books,
XXVII, XXIX and XXX dealing respectively with ‘ the
Heretical Systems ’, ‘ Buddhist Logic ’, and ‘ the. Teach-
ings of Buddhism ’ are translated literally, so that apart
from the use I have made of it, the translation may
be helpful to those who may not be able to go to the
original itself. I hope the translation will prove ter be cf
value for this purpose.
In the course of this work, I took advantage of the
progress of my studies to submit three tentative papers
(i) on ‘ the Buddhism of Manimekhalai ’ to a collection of
Buddhist Studies in course of publication by my friend.
Dr. B. C. Law of Calcutta ; (*2) another paper ‘A
X
PREFACE
f-
Buddhist School at Kanchi ’ was presented to the
Fourth Oriental Conference held in Allahabad in Novem-
ber last, and is in course of publication in the proceedings
of the Conference; (3) and the last ‘ A Tamil Treatise on
Buddhist Logic ’ to the Vasanta Silver Jubilee Volume
in honour of Principal A. B. Dhruva of the Benares
University by his friends and admirers, and the work is
expected to be published soon in Ahmadabad.
In the course of the work Pandit M. Raghava
Aiyangar of University Tamil Lexicon Office did me the
favour to assist by putting book XXIX of the poem in
prose order at my request with a view to facilitating the
work of translation. I found, h®wever, that the version
was not of as much value as I had anticipated, as the diffi-
culty of understanding it lay not so much in the Tamil
as in a knowledge of the technicalities of Indian Logic as
such. But the good Pandit’s work was of some assist-
ance and I acknowledge it with pleasure. Since the
matter was put in final form, my friend, Mr. T. C.
Srinivasa Aiyangar, B.A., B.L., M.L.C., Secretary, Tamil
Sangam, Madura, drew my attention to a brochure by
Pandit Tirunarayana Aiyangar of the Tamil Sangam.
It is an exposition of the tecnnical terms of logic with a
v|ew to elucidating book XXIX of Manimekhalai. It is
a very useful piece of work and enabled me to make a
correction or two. I need hardly add that this attempt
of mine would have been impossible but for the labours of
Pandit Mahamahopadhyaya V. Svaminatha Aiyar whose
excellent edition of the work leaves little to be desired
His notes on books XXVII and XXX were of the
greatest value and go only to enhance his character for
deliberately omitted to annotate book
XXIX. His previous work was of undoubted advantage
to me even in translating book XXIX.
PREFACE
xi
#
Before concluding, I must acknowledge my obligation
to my venerable friend, Professor H. Jacobi of Bonn.
His suggestion that the philosophical systems may throw
light upon the chronology of the poem supplied the
stimulus for my taking up this work, although exigencies
of other work prevented my doing it as soon as I might,
under more favourable circumstances, have done. He
seems to have gone to work on the subject himself on
the basis of the abridge^ account given in Mr.
Kanakasabhai Pillai’s Tamils Eighteen Hundred
Years ago., and sent me a proof copy of a paper he
contributed to a ‘ Festschrift ’ in honour of the late Dr. E .
Hultzsch. He must fee given credit for the independent
discovery of the similarity of the Buddhist logic of
Manimekhalai to the Nyayapravesa of Dignaga. I
received the proof after I had delivered my lectures
and before I sent him my manuscript for criticism.
When the lectures had been delivered, I sent copy
of my lectures and translation of the relevant chapters
for his criticism which he had the great kindness to send
me freely and fully, for which I am specially grateful to
him. It is matter for great regret to me that we cannot
bring ourselves to agree in regard to the main thesis of the
relation between book XXIX of the Manimekhalai and
the treatises of Dignaga on Logic. I have re-considered
the position on the basis of his criticism and I regret
very much indeed that I am not able to see eye to eye
with him on this particular point. This examination of
the learned Professor’s critical remarks is appended to
my lectures. None the less, I feel deeply indebted to
him for the time and trouble that he bestowed upon a
careful study of the manuscript and giving me the benefit
of his views thereon in a letter concluding with ‘it is
my sincere opinion that by making accessible to scholars
XU
PREFACE
at large the contents of the “Manimekhalai”, specially by
a faithful translation of the chapters bearing on Indian
Philosophy and Buddhism, you are entitled to the grati-
tude and admiration of all who take an interest in Indian
culture and the history of South India It is to be hoped
that the work will serve the purpose so well indicated
by the Professor, and I seek no more reward than that
for the labour that I have been able to bestow upon it.
I acknowledge with ple^isure my obligations to the
Publishers, Messrs. Luzac and Co., Oriental and Foreign
Book-sellers, London, and to the Diocesan Press, Madras
the Printers, for the careful printing and excellent get-up
•of the work. Mr. A. V. Venkatar%pia Aiyar, M.A., L.T.,
Curator, Madras Records, read the final proof ; and Mr.
R. Gopalam, M.A., of the Connemara Library prepared
the index at a time when I was badly in need of assist-
ance owing to inconveniences and ill health. I acknow-
ledge with gratitude the valuable and timely assistance
they gave me on this as on other occasions. The Madras
School Book and Literature Society, on the motion of
their President, the Rev. Canon Sell, have resolved
to bear a part of the expenses of publication of this
work. I acknowledge this assistance with pleasure and
gratitude.
«'
S. KRISHNASWAMI AIYANGAR,
Vi|Ayai5asami, October 6th, 1927,
Marine Villa, Madras University.
#■
CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface ...
vii
Errata ...
XV
Introduction
•
xvii
Supplement
••• •
xxxi
Manimekhalai
The Poem
...
1
j j
Its Historical Character
12
i)
Historical Conclusions
...
34
>>
Its Philosophical Systems
54
>»
Other *^ViEWS on
THE ABOVE
85
Appbndix
...
...
...
108
Prologue
111
Book I
114
11
116
,, III
... ...
...
...
117
IV
...
119
V
121
„ VI
...
...
124
.. VII
... ...
...
129
VIII
131
„ IX
...
132
.. X
134
„ XI
137
XII
...
...
. . •
141
XIII
... •*»
143
„ XIV
...
145
„ XV
*
148
„ XVI
... ...
• a.
Iso
„ XVII
152
„ XVIII
. ^ .
■ • •
155
„ XIX
...
158
XX
... ...
160
XXI
163
XXII
... •».
•
166
XIV
CONTENTS
f!
PAGE
Book XXIII ... ... 172
„ XXIV ... 175
„ XXV 180
„ XXVI ... 186
„ XXVII 189
„ XXVIII 199
„ XXIX 204
„ KXX ... ... 221
Index ... ... ... ... ... ... 231
«>
I
ERRATA
Page Line Error
1 3 for Valaiyapti
Correction
read Valayapati
10
20
,,
crticising ,,
criticising
14
9
» »
Thd
The ^
18
n* 2
» >
xxviii p. 172 ,,
xxviii, 1. 172
19
6
> )
^angan • ,,
!§angam
22
17
,,
Set ,,
Sect
24
16
is ,,
are
30
4
> >
9 1 9
*
38
3
Radran Kannan ,,
Rudran Kanpan
39
23
} 1
achievements ,,
achievement
1 1
30
,,
Palaiyan ,,
Palaiyan ,
41
26
1 )
filed
field
45
30
1 1
Tripa^ur ,,
TirupaSur
60
28
> }
the first two ,,
the first two, Tantra K&n^a
] ]
31
i 3
(books 13 to 16) ,,
(books 15 and 16).
62
34
35
Indian Philosophy ,,
Indian Philosophy,
96
3 inset
in theoretical , ,
in the theoretical
98
2
3 3
already explained ,,
already been explained
109
14
3 3
of
to
112
27
3 3
and accompanied ,,
and, accompanied
114
16
3 3
vast , ,
vaster
116
12
» 3
and seeing , ,
and, seeing
130
26
3 3
in a manner ,,
in the manner
133
23
3 3
Then , ,
“ Then
134
7
3 3
day
day
147
14
3 3
unfurl ,,
strike sail
155
25
3 3
and entering ,,
and, entering
176
2
3 3
women ,,
woman
178
2
3 3
had fallen ,,
had befallen
189
3
3 3
fortification
fortifications
210
16
is a eternal ,,
is eternal.
211
5
3 3
Asray a-sid d ham , ,
A§raya-asiddham m
,,
17
3 3
Uapiyika- , ,
Ubhayaika-
213
1
3 3
Up-
, Ubh-
214
29
3 3
make ,,
makes
216
8
3 3
contradictory >
, contrary
Itis matter for regret that a certain number of errors in
diacritical marks escaped correction in proof. They are not included in the
errata as being too obvious.
I
INTRODUCTION.
In the following lectures I have attempted to consider
first of all the question what the position of Manime-
khalai is among the Tamil classics generally aisd how
far the general judgment of •the Tamil literary public
that it is one among the five great classics is justifiable
on grounds of literary merit and general classical ex-
cellence. As such, it was necessary to consider whether
it could be regarded aǤangam work, and if so, in what
particular sense of the term, whether as a work which
was presented to the Sangam and which received the
Sangam imprimatur, or whether it should be taken
to be merely a literary work of classic excellence, as
often-times the expression is used in that sense in later
Tamil literature. The investigation and enquiry into
Tamil literary tradition leads to the conclusion that it
is a work of classic excellence in Tamil literature and
may be regarded as a Sangam work in that sense. We
have no information that it was ever presented to the
Sangam, although, according to Tamil tradition, the
author was one of the Sangam 49, and, being so close ^o
the age of the Sangam itself, it may be spoken of appro-
priately as a Sangam work, though not presented to
the Sangam. .
This position receives additional support in tlie
contents of the two works, which constitute a twin
Epic, namely, Silappadhikaram-Manimekhalai. The
subject-matter of the two is one continuous story, and
describes what befell a householder and his wife of the
city of Puhar, and, as a consequence, the renunciation
c
#
%
xviii INTRODUCTION ^
of the daughter of the hero of her life as the first courtezan
of the Chola capital. The author of the one is des-
cribed to us as the brother of the contemporary Chera
ruler, Senguttuvan, a Sangam celebrity, and the author
of the other is similarly introduced to us as a personal
and admiring friend of the Chera sovereign and his
ascetic younger brother. Other details of a contemporary
characfer introduced in the story, all of them, are
referable to incidents wljich find mention in relation to
various rulers of the Tamil land in the Sangam classics.
Thus the mere external circumstances and the few
details that we possess of the life and life-time of the
authors, as well as the Tamil tr^ition that the author
of the Manimekhalai himself was one of the Sangam 49,
all alike seem to tend to the conclusion that the work was
a product of the age which may be generally described
as' the age of the Sangam, that is, the age of Senguttu-
van Chera as the dominant ruler of South India.
Tamil early adopted a system of grammar, and so far
as literary productions in the language go, follow the
prevalent system of grammar and rhetoric. As such
these works do not lend themselves exactly to that kind
of investigation of a linguistic and philological character
which could be more appropriately adopted in regard to
works where the language is more flexible and has not
attained to the classic fixity of an accepted system of
grammar. But it still lends itself to a certain amount
of investigation as a work of literature, and such an
investigation clearly reveals the intimate connection
between the Silappadhikaram and the Manimekhalai it-
self as literary works, products of a single age, a single
tradition, and of a very similar atmosphere. If compari-
sons are made of these with genuine Sangam classics
themselves, the similarity is no less pronounced, apart
INTRODUCTION
XIX
9
from the similarity of historical matter and of geogra-
phical sorroundings. Thus from the point of view of
literary criticism, we have good reason for regarding
these as classics of Tamil, which may be treated as of
the same literary character as Sangam works.
The historical and geographical details which can
be gathered round a character like Senguttuvan Chera,
and just a few others who happen to figure ip. these
romantic poems, when carefuy.y collected and collaborat-
ed, tell the same tale of contemporaneity between the
works themselves and between the two works and other
Sangam works so-called. Specific instances of histo-
rical incidents are d^alt with in full detail in the lec-
tures themselves. We need hardly do more here than
merely to point out that the four capitals of Puhar,
Madura, Vanji, and Kan chi occur in the poem. Their
condition and the rulers that held sway over them are
described incidentally in the course of the story, and
these admit of definite treatment in comparison with the
condition of these capitals, as we find them described in
the Sangam works. One point which clinches the matter
and provides a definite test of the age is that through-
out the story as narrated in these two works, Kanchi
remained a viceroyalty under the authority of the Cholas,
who, under Karikala, are credited uniformly by Tatoil
tradition with having civilized this land and brought it
into the pale of Tamil civilization. Without going into
too much detail here, it may be said that the pountry
round Kanchi which became peculiarly the territory* of
the Pallavas, remained under Chola rule, and a Chola,
a prince of the blood very often, held the viceroyalty.
The one remarkable change for which we have evidence
in the Sangam works is the placing of this viceroyalty
in the hands of aTondaman chiesf by name Ilarh-Tirayan.
XX
INTRODUCTION
C
This took place in the last period of the age of the
Sangam from the evidence of the Sangam literature
itself. In the classics with which we are concerned,
there is no evidence of our having reached the stage
when Kanchi was under the rule of Tondaman-Ilarh-
Tirayan ; nor have we any vestige of evidence that would
justify the assumption that the Tondaman chief had
ruled aijd passed away. Other historical details can be
recited in number. It is Jiardly necessary to take up
those details here, which are discussed elsewhere in the
course of this work and in other works of ours. The
conclusion to which we are, therefore, irresistibly
driven is that we are in an age wh^n the Sangam activity
had not yet ceased, and this view is in full accord with
all the evidence available regarding the Sangam and its
age in the vast mass of literature in which that evidence
lies scattered.
Our main purpose in this thesis has been to consider
what light the philosophical systems and the religious
condition of the country as described in the Manime-
khalai throw upon this important question of the
age of the work itself and of the Sangam literature
generally. It is with a view to this that the examination
was actually suggested by Professor Jacobi and was
tak'en up by ourselves. The chapters bearing upon the
questions are three, namely, books XXVII, XXIX and
XXX. Book XXVII discusses the heretical systems from
the point of view of orthodox Buddhism. Mani-
mekhalai discusses, with orthodox professors of the
various schools, the tenets of their particular systems on
the basis of their authoritative works with a view to
learn what exactly they might have to teach. She begins
with a discussion of the Pramanas applicable generally as
instruments of knowledge, and, under the general group-
INTRODUCTION
ing Vaidikavada, five separate systems are described,
all acknowledging the authority of the Veda. The
first statement of importance contained in this particular
part has relation to pramaims as applied to the V aidika
system. Three authorities are mentioned, Vedavyasa,
Jaimini and Krtakoti. Of these, the first is said to have
formulated ten pramanas, of which the second rejected
four and accepted only six. The third one, however,
seems to have accepted eight and rejected only two of
the ten. After a detailed discussion of the prammias
and what they are, the discussion winds up with the
conclusion that the prammias current at the time are six,
and they applied aljke to the six systems commonly
recognized as such. The six prammias as given are,
Pratyaksha, Anumana, Sabda, Upamana, Arthapatti,
and Abhava. The six systems held as orthodox are
Lokayatam, Bauddham, Sankyam, Naiyayikam,Vaiseshi-
kam, Mimamsam, with the respective authors, Brhaspati,
Jina, Kapila, Akshapada, Kanada, and Jaimini. In this
recital of six, the omission of Jainism is interesting, but
may be understood as being due to its not following the
Vaidika pramafzas. While Nyaya and Vaiseshika are
both of them mentioned. Yoga is not mentioned along
with Sankya. Bauddham is mentioned as a religion to
which these pramanas were applicable, and that ffe in
accordance with the opinion that the Bauddhas from
Buddha onwards to Vasubandhu adopted the system of
Akshapada, and perhaps other teachers of the ^ramana
Vada likewise. Mimamsa is mentioned as one SSfetra
ascribed to Jaimini, not as two as in later times and in
orthodox parlance it had come to be recognized. This
leaves out the Brahma Kanda of Vyasa. Apart from this
general system of prama'^s^ others from whom she at-
tempted to learn their tenets weie Saivavadi,Brahmavadi,
•
xxii
INTRODUCTION
t
Vaishnavavadi and Veda VMi. At the end of the book,
in summing up the totality of the systems she attempted
to learn she includes these first five as one. The next
following two, the teaching of the Ajivaka and that of
the Nirgrantha she apparently counts as one. The
chapter winds up with the statement that thus she had
learnt from their respective teachers the five systems,
and Mi,nimekhalai herself repeats the statement later
when she mentions it to A^avana Adigal that she had
learnt the five systems according to their authoritative
texts from those who had specially studied them, in book
XXIX. This kind of a reference to the five heretical
systems makes it clear that at tha^ime there was a fixed
notion that six were regarded as the prevalent systems to
which from the point of view of the Buddhists five were
heretical. Including the orthodox Buddhist system, it
made up six, and therefore, we are justified in regarding
the six systems as those referred to as current by Manime-
khalai herself in an earlier place. The points of import-
ance for our investigation in this chapter are that the
six accepted Vaidikapranianas applied even to Buddhism,
that Buddhism regarded itself as within the fold of
Vaidika pyamanas^ such as Jainism was not. The
Mimarhsa is regarded as a single system as yet, while the
Yoga system had not been known, at any rate had
not become a recognized system in this part of the
country. The later recognition that two pramanas were
alone vg,lid by the Buddhists, namely, Pratyaksha and
AimmSna, had not yet been adopted exclusively as a
cardinal doctrine of Buddhism.
Passing on to chapter xxix, we are here introduced to
a system of Buddhist logic where the teaching of the Bud-
dhists assumes more definite shape and is in the course of
the full definition to which it attained under Dignaga-
INTRODUCTION
xxiii
charya. Here the author puts the Buddhist teaching of
logic in the mouth of Aravana Adigal, introduced as a
Buddhist saint of the highest reputation in the Tamil
country at the time. The chapter begins with saying
that the highest authority for the system is Jinendra, the
Buddha, and that the pramatias are actually only two,
Pratyaksha and Anumana. After defining these two, a
general statement is put in that all the other pzai^ia-nas
are capable of inclusion ,in Anumana. Then we
are led to the five avayavas or organs of syllogism,
Pratigna (proposition), (2) Hetu (reason), (3) Drishtanta
or Udaharana (example), (4) Upanaya (application) and
(5) Nigamana (conclusion). After having defined and
illustrated the first three, the last two are passed over
as being capable of inclusion in Drishtanta. Then
follows a further discussion that these three could be
valid and invalid, and the sub-division of each one of
them is given with illustrations. Thus we are taken
through a regular course of logic, the purpose of the
cultivation of which is stated to be, at the end of the
chapter, that by means of the validity of reasoning and its
invalidity, one may understand that which is truth from
that which is other than truth. In the details that are
given of the whole discussion and in the general trend of
the discussion itself, the Manimekhalai seems to u% to
follow the prevalent teaching of logic current in Kanchi
at the time. From Kanchi however, there hailed a
logician of great reputation, known by the name, of Dig-
naga, who wrote, according to Chinese authority, a nlim-
ber of treatises on the subject, and thereby had become
the athoritative teacher of the system. Some of his works
have been continuously in use as text-books in China, and
from a somewhat later period, in Tibet. They were
apparently in use in India as well, but had long since
xsiv INTRODUCTION
f
gone out of use. Within the last twenty years some of
these have been recovered by various scholars, Chinese,
Tibetan, Indian and European of various nationalities.
The best known works of this Dignaga are Pramana-
samucchaya and Nyayapravesa. These are sometimes
criticized in commentaries by Brahmanical commentators
as well as Jain, and, needless to say, quoted with appro-
val and elaborated by Buddhist commentators. The two
works quoted above constitute the final authoritative
texts of this author on the subject, of which the Nyaya-
pravesa seems from the information available to us at
present, the fuller. For our purpose the similarity
between this work of Dignaga and chapter xxix of the
Manimekhalai runs through all details, and even the
examples happen to be the same. This is nothing
surprising as, in the treatment of technical subjects like
this, examples are chosen for their peculiar aptness and
all teachers accept them generally for purposes of illus-
tration. Having regard to the great reputation that
Dignaga has achieved as a logician, it may seem a natural
inference that a poet like the author of the Manimekhalai
should have borrowed the teaching from a treatise like the
Nyayapravesa. Notwithstanding the closeness of simi-
larity, there are a few points in which the Manimekhalai
treatment of the subject seems to mark a transition from,
it may be, the Naiyayikas to the teaching of Dignaga
himself, particularly so in the two points to which atten-
tion had^been drawn, namely, in the statement that the
frafnams are only two, others being capable of inclusion
in the second, Anumana ; the reference is obviously made
to the other four pramEnas out of the six already referred
to as current at the time and applicable to the six systems
in book XXVII. We have no right to interpret the other
pramwitas there as any other than the four of the six, to
• INTRODUCTION xxv
which the work made explicit reference in book XXVII,
whereas Dignaga seems to have no such qualms, and
actually deals with the four pramaiias of the Naiyayikas,
retains the first two, and rejects the other two, after
examination, positively. Similarly in the discussion of
the avayavas, the Manimekhalai seems to mark a transi-
tion. It mentions the five amyams, accepts the three,
and does not consider the other two as they are Capable
of inclusion in the third. There is nothing like the re-
jection of these as invalid as in the case of Dignaga.
Then there is a third point. Dignaga solemnly lays him-
self out to consider the Svartha and Parartha form of
syllogism, that is, sy^^-logistic ratiocination with a view
to convincing oneself, and with a view to convincing
others. After a serious discussion, he comes to the con-
clusion that the latter being included in the former, it is
superfluous to treat of it separately. To the Manimekhalai,
it does not seem necessary to discuss the latter at all. In
regard to the Paksha-abhasas discussed, the Nyaya-
pravesa is supposed to make a new classification and
describes nine which are found described almost in the
same terms in the Manimekhalai itself.
Here comes in a discussion which may seem alien to
the course of this argument, but which, as will be noticed,
has an important and vital bearing on the question itself.
Who is the author of the Nyayapravesa ? The text of the
Nyayapravesa not having been available, there were two
clearly divided schools of thought, one of them regarding
the Nyayapravesa, both in the Tibetan and Chinese
version as well as the now available Sanskrit version,
is the work of Dignaga; another school, basing itself
chiefly on an examination of the Chinese originals,
regards it as the work of Dignaga’s immediate disciple
Sankarasvamin. Without goiifg into the arguments
xxvi
INTRODUCTION
which will be found elsewhere, we may state it here that
although Buddhist tradition had known of Sankarasvamin
as the disciple of Dignaga, no authority bearing on
Buddhist literature has mentioned a work, Nyayapravesa
ascribing it to Sankarasvamin as the author. It is now
clear that the Nyayapravesa was ascribed to Sankara-
svamin very early in China, and that the work had been
constantly in use there. There is no^ mention, however,
of Nyayapravesa as the work of Sankarasvamin any-
where in the works of Hiuen T’sang among treatises on
logic which were being studied by students at the
schools and Universities in India. I’tsing who gives a
complete list does not mention tl?^ Nyayapravesa as the
work of a Sankarasvamin, but seems to mention it, not
perhaps exactly in the same form, as the work of
Dignaga himself. So the work may well have to be
regarded as the work of Dignaga, which his disciple
Sankarasvamin perhaps taught and his teaching spread
into China, and gave him the reputation of being the
author of the work. But whether the Nyayapravesa is
the work of Dignaga himself, as we prefer to take it, or
whether it should turn out to be the work of Sankara-
svamin, actually his disciple, it does not materially affect
our question, as the difference of time could be hardly a
generation. The real question is whether the Nyaya-
pravesa is copied in the Manimekhalai or, as we take it,
whether the Manimekhalai marks a transition between
the Naiyayikas and the Nyayapravesa of Dignaga. In
the latter alternative, the date of the work could be much
earlier than A.D. 400; and in the former alternative
it must be held decisively to be a work of the fifth
century at the earliest. We have good reason for regard-
ing Manimekhalai as a work anterior to Dignaga, and
we shall see that it is in a way supported by what the
^ INTRODUCTION srxyii
work has to say actually of ; Buddhism in the following
book.
In book XXX the author of the Manimekhalai lays
himself out to give the actual teaching of the Buddha
‘ according to the Pitakas and gives a clear but succinct
statement of the main Buddhistic theory of the ‘ Four
Truths ‘ the twelve Nidanas and the means of
getting to the correct knowledge, which ukimately
would put an end to ‘ Beiisig There is here none of
the features that the later schools of Buddhism indicate,
so that we cannot exactly label the Buddhism contained
in book XXX as of this school or that precisely. It may
be said, however, tt^be of the Sthaviravada and of the
Sautrantika school of Buddhism, which seems to be the
form in vogue in this part of the country, and coming in
for much criticism later. This position is, to some ex-
tent, supported by the expression used in the text itself
elsewhere that it is the ‘ Path of the Pitakas of the Great
One ’. Even in this abridged form, it is not without
points that indicate a transition similar to those indicated
in book XXIX. There is nothing that may be regarded as
referring to any form of Mahayana Buddhism, particu-
larly the ^unyavada as formulated by Nagarjuna. One
way of interpreting this silence would be that Nagarjuna’s
teaching as such of the ^unyavada had not yet
travelled to the Tamil country to be mentioned in con-
nection with the orthodox teaching of Buddhism or to be
condemned as unorthodox. This is to some, extent
confirmed by the fact that in referring to the soul, the
reference in book XXX seems clearly to be to the indivi-
dual soul, not to, the universal Soul, which seems to be a
development of the so-called Satyasiddhi school which
came a little later. These points support the view to
which we were led in our study rif the previous books,
INTRODUCTION
5CXV111
and thus make the work clearly one of a date anterior to
Dignaga, and not posterior.
This general position to which we have been led by
our own study of the philosophical systems, though at
variance with the views to which Professor Jacobi has
arrived on the same material, cannot by itself be held
decisive of the age of the Tamil classic. This question
has to be settled actually on other grounds, of which we
have indicated the genqjral position in some detail
already. Kanchi is referred to as under the rule of the
Cholas yet, and the person actually mentioned as
holding rule at the time was the younger brother of the
Chola ruler for the time being, i^ainst this viceroyalty
an invasion was undertaken by the united armies of the
Cheras and the Pandyas which left the Chera capital
Vanji impelled by earth hunger and nothing else, and
attacked the viceroyalty. The united armies were
defeated by the princely viceroy of the Cholas who
presented to the elder brother, the monarch, as spoils
of war, the umbrellas that he captured on the field of
battle. This specific historical incident which is des-
cribed with all the precision of a historical statement in
the work must decide the question along with the other
historical matter, to which we have already adverted.
N (5 princely viceroy of the Chola was possible in Kanchi
after A.D. 300, from which period we have a continuous
succession of Pailava rulers holding sway in the region.
Once fhe Pallavas had established their position in
Kanchi, their neighbours in the west and the north had
become others than the Cheras. From comparatively
early times, certainly during the fifth century, the
immediate neighbours to the west were the Gangas, and
a little farther to the west by north were the Kadambas,
over both of whom the Pallavas claimed suzerainty
^ iNTfe-ODtrctlON xxiifc
readily recognized by the other parties. This position
is not reflected in the Manimekhalai or Silappadhikaram.
Whereas that which we find actually and definitely stated
is very much more a reflection of what is derivable from
purely Sangam literature so-called. This general position
together with the specific datum of the contemporaneity
of the authors to Senguttuvan Chera must have the
decisive force. Other grounds leading to a similar con-
clusion will be found in , our other works :• — ^The
Augustan Age of Tamil Literature (Ancient India,
chapter xiv), The Beginnings of South Indian History
and The Contributions of South India to Indian Culture^
The age of the Sanga.m must be anterior to that of the
Pallavas, and the age of the Manimekhalai and Silappadhi-
karam, if not actually referable as the works of the
Sangam as such, certainly is referable to the period in
the course of the activity of the Sangam.
SUPPLEMENT^
[By Prof^ H. Jacobi to his article for the Plultzsch Jttbtlee
number of the ‘ Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranis tikJ)
•
I HAD induced Professor Krishnaswami Aiyangar some
years ago to undertake the full and correct translation of
those portions of the Manimekhalai which dealt with
Indian philosophical systems, so that it may serve as a
basis to fix the age o|,,that work with greater probability.
As I heard nothing further about this project it seemed
to me that its execution was postponed to an indefinite
future. Thereupon I thought that I ought not to delay
the publication of what I had got up about the age of
this work from out of the translation by Kanakasabhai.
The result is the above contribution to the Jubilee num-
ber intended for Hultzsch.^ When my contribution was
ready for the press, Professor Krishnaswami Aiyangar
wrote to me that he had translated the chapters
of the Manimekhalai relating to the philosophy and
on April lo, 1926, I received a type- written copy
of his translation of the Chapters 27 and 29. “ In
the light of these more correct reproduction of the
original many of the obscurities of Kanakasabhai’s
translation were cleared up, to mention which in detail
here would be to digress. Nevertheless I may here*set
down briefly the most important of the chief points of my
^ I am obliged to Mr. R. Gopalan, m.a., Sub-Librarian, Connemara
Public Library and Mr. S. T. Krishnamacliaryar, b.a., b.l., High Court
Vakil, for the translation of this Supplement.
^ ‘ Zeitschrift fur'Indologie und Iranistik/ : Band 5 Hft 3 of theDeutsch
Morgalandissche Gesselle.schaft (Leipzig).
xxxii
SUPPLEMENT
earlier deduction — the acquaintance of the author of
Manimekhalai with Dignaga’s philosophy. First of all
I can assert with satisfaction that I have correctly in-
terpreted the confusing and distorted passages dealing
with perception and the condition for the conclusiveness
of an argument, and have referred to the respective
theories of Dignaga. The definition of Pratyaksha reads
in the Iiew translation; — ‘name {namd), class ijati),
quality {£una), and action, {kriya) are excluded from
this, viz. perception, as they are obtainable from in-
ference {cmumUnd). That corresponds as I have indi-
cated above to Dignaga’s doctrine. The passage on the
three conditions of conclusive reason reads (in chapter
29) ‘ the reason (hetti) is of three kinds : — (i) ‘ being
attributive of the subject ; (2) becoming attributable to a
similar subject, and (3) becoming not attributable to the
opposite, . Thereupon follows the definition of
Sapakshaand Vipaksha (similar subject and the opposite).
This passage of the trairupya of the linga forms the basis
of Dignaga’s system of logic, whereby the logic of the
Nyaya system shows itself far superior and as is well
known has acquired considerable influence over the
further development of Indian logic. There is thus no
doubt that the author of Manimekhalai knew of Dignaga’s
doctrine of cognizance and logic. But we can now go
an important step further beyond the earlier established
facts. For in those portions of the 29th chapter of the
Manimekhalai which Kanakasabhai has not translated,
the Buddhistic system of logic is expounded, and is quite
in strict agreement with the contents of the Nyayapravesa
as it is known to us through an analysis of the Chinese
translation of that work by Sadajiro Sugiura,’' and the
Hindu Logic as preserved in China, Japan, Philadelphia, 1900,
chapter iy,
SUPPLEMENT xxxiii
%
Tibetan translation by Satischandra Vidyabhushana.*
The Sanskrit original has been already under print for
some time for the Gaek wad’s Oriental Series, but has not
come out till now. As Mironow^ shows it is the original
of the Tibetan translation which Vidyabhushana has
analysed. The agreement of the theories of logic in the
29th chapter of the Manimekhalai with that of the Nyaya-
pravesa rises to almost complete similarity in the passage
on the ‘ fallacious paksa^ hetu^ and drstUnta. There are
found the same nine paksabhasas^io\x.x\&^'nhetvabhasas‘3^!xdL
ten drshtantabhasas in the same arrangement and almost
through the same series^ in the Manimekhalai as in the
Nyayapravesa. Even the examples instanced for the
purposes of explanation agree in most cases in both. It
is thus established without any doubt that the author of
the Manimekhalai has made, use of the Nyayapravesa in
a most evident manner.
The author of the Nyayapravesa is, according to the
Chinese tradition which Sugiura follows, Sankarasvamin,
a pupil of Dignaga, but according to the Tibetan tradi-
tion, which does not know Sankarasvamin at all, it is
Dignaga, hence Vidyabhushana also names him as the
author. But that is an error as M. Tubianski'*' has
shown. Dignaga is the author of the Nyayadvara (pre-
served in the Chinese translation), a small and very terse
work. Sankarasvamin has stated in an extremely clear
way the system of logic contained therein, in the Nyaya-
pravesa, probably with some embellishments.® Owing
^ History of the Mediceval School of Indian Logic ^ Calcutta, 1909, pp.
89 ff.
® Sjee Garbe-Festschifte, p. 38 ff.
® Thus the 3 and 4 paksdbhdsa are transposed.
* Bulletin de P Academic de V U,R,S.S*, 1926, p. 975 ff.
* Sugiura 1 c. p. 61 says that Dignaga treats only of five pak^ddhdsas ;
to these Sankara added the 4 latter. ^
,^iv SUPPLEMENT ^
to the excellence of its exposition the Nyayapravesa has
become manifestly the most popular compendium of
Lddhistic logic.' The Jain Haribhadra also has
written a commentary thereto and the authoi of the
Manimekhalai has made it the basis of his exposition o
Buddhist logic. The latter fact is, under the present
circumstances, of importance in reference to chrono ogy,
as thereby the upper limit of the composition of the
Manimikhalai is shifted at least one generation lower
down and certainly well in !he sixth century ^ter Christ
But it is another question whether the age ot
Sangam literature is thereby fixed. For as Knshnaswami
Ayyangar declares, though indeed the author of the
Manirrfekhalai belongs to the Sangam Academy his
uoem is not of the works recognized by them. The
decision of the savants of Tamil literature is incumbent
on what can be gathered from these traditions.
NOTE
Since the book had been almost completely prmted, 1 had the
bents oYreading through Professor Tucci’s article ; Is Nyaya-
nravesabv Dignaga’ in the Jmirnal ot the Royal Aeiatu- Society
S Januan- 1928. In this article the Professor takes up Ae
Question as” in the article of Tubianski, and gives it as his opinion
decisively that the work Nyayapravesa is the work of bankaia-
svamin, and that the work of Dignaga nearest akin to itis _a woi
called Nyayamukha, as several of the quotations criticmed by
Kumarila and Parthasarathi Misra as from Dignaga are found in
the work Nyayamukha. What is more, the professor points out
that the work of Dignaga actually contains only five Paksha-
abkasas quoted ia this order
(1) Suvachana Viruddham.
(2) Agama Viruddham.
(3) Loka Viruddham.
(4) Pratyaksha Viruddham.
(5) Anumaaa Viruddham.
^ Cf. Sttgiural. c. p. 36 ff.
SUPPLBMENt XXXV
In the Nyayapravesa, on the contrary, four more are added
namely : —
(6) Aprasiddha Viseshanam.
(7) Aprasiddha Viseshyam.
(8) Aprasiddha Ubhayam.
(9) Prasiddha Sambandham.
These four are criticized by Chinese commentators like
Shemt’ai, as being superfluous additions. In regard to the last
of these there is also found an error that the dbhdsa actually
referred to must be Apraszddka-SB.mhsLn6.ham and not Ih'asiddha-
Sambandham as it is given. It i^ very interesting to note here
that the Manimekhalai gives these Paksha-abhasas as Aprasiddha-
Sambandham in the correct form. The Manimekhalai gives all,
the nine Paksha-abhasas in this order : —
(1) Pratyaksha Viruddham.
(2) Anumana Vii^hdham.
(3) Suvachana Viruddham.
(4) Loka Viruddham.
(5) Agama Viruddham.
(6) Aprasiddha Viseshanam.
(7) Aprasiddha Viseshyam.
(8) Aprasiddha Ubhayam.
(9) Aprasiddha Sambandham.
The other commentator Kwei-chi similarly comments : —
‘ Dignaga established only these five Abkasas, and Sankarasvamin
added the other four,' meaning the first five and the next four
respectively.
In regard to the argument of Vidusekhara Batfacharya that
Sankarasvamin' s name is not mentioned by Hiuen T’sang, pro-
fessor Tucci does not regard the objection decisive on the
following grounds : —
(1) That Hiuen T’sang translated the work under the
name of Sankarasvamin.
(2) That both the commentators Kwei-chi and §hen4’ai
received all their information about this work on logic from the
great Chinese traveller and nobody else, so that the information
that they give is to be regarded as that for which the authority
of the great traveller could be taken for granted.
MANIMEKHALAI; THE POEM
Manimekhalai as a poem is included zmdng the
five great kavyas of Tamil literature, the other four being
Chintamani, Silappadhikaram, Valaiyapti and Kundala-
kesi. As a peruThkappiyam (Sans. ; Mahakavyd) it must
satisfy certain requirements. It must treat of the life
story of a hero preferably, or a heroine, fully and this
involves the necessity of beginning with the parentage
and birth of the hero or the heroine, and tracing his or
her life through all the stages to the threshold of the life
hereafter. It must, therefore, subserve the four puru-
shartas or ends of existence, Aram, Pond, Inbam, Vldu,
or Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha. Therefore it is to
be a self-contained work, a heroic poem dealing with the
life of the hero in its entirety. The first question that
would arise, therefore, is whether the poem Manimekha-
lai answers to this description of a perumkuppiyam.
The answer to this question, on the face of it, is that it
does not, although it may be possible perhaps also" to
say that it actually does. It may be said to answer to
the description of a perumkappiyam inasmuch as the
story begins practically with the beginning of the life of
Manimekhalai, not without hints and allusions to her
birth and early life. It takes her through all the inci-
dents of her worldly life till she attains to the ripeness
of entering the Buddhist cloister as a nun. This last
step puts an end, in orthodox Buddhist belief as also to
a great extent in the Hindu, to her earthly life.
MAlillMEKHALAi
Interpreted in this manner, it can be regarded that the
work is a complete picture of the life of the heroine, and
therefore answers to the description of a great ksvya.
It may, however, be objected that very many of the
incidents of her early life are passed over with brief hints
and allusions, that her parentage cannot be said in any
manner to be treated in this work, and as such it falls
short of the requirements of a kcLvya. This objection
finds some justification in» the work being known not
Manimekhalai uniformly. It is described as Manime-
khalaituravu in the prologue to the poem. Besides this,
the work is said to be referred to in the commentary of
Nilakesi, as Manimekhalaituravu ako. If so the subject
may be described as ‘ the renunciation of Manimekhalai ’,
and therefore the subject of the poem would be only that
part of Manimekhalai’s life which refers to her renun-
ciation of worldly life. The learned Editor of the work
states that he called it Manimekhalar4m*'itije'reason that
theX^nie has been found to be used generally in that
form. It therefore cannot be said that the position that
by itself it is not a mahakavyahzs not some tenable argu-
mentito support it in itself. This position finds further
suppoi\t in the Silappadhikaram, which, in its concluding
portioi|. states that the story of Manimekhalai completes
the subject matter of the poem Silappadhikaram. This
positi(ym is taken up by the commentator of the latter
Adiyfirkkunallar. He lays it down that a kappiyam
mi^^t subserve the four main ends of life, and propounds
tMie question that the Silappadhikaram stops with the
first three and does not appear to treat separately of the
fourth. He gives a number of references in .the course
of the work to the renunciation of Manimekhalai and
‘ concludes that having learnt that Manimekhalai had
renounced life, the atithor of the ^ilap|)adhika.ram,
I'HE poem
3
Ilango-Adigal, set this at the end of his own work, and
wished to treat the complete work as a mahakmya
treating of the four objects of life. When he communi-
cated his resolution to Sattan, his friend, Sattan told
him m reply that he had already composed a work on
Manimekhalai making her renunciation the subject, and
illustrative of the two main objects of life, Dharma and
Moksha. Ilangb wished that the two should fin^ vogue
in the world as one kavya. Notwithstanding this, these
are regarded as two because two authors composed
them
This position of the commentator finds support in the
prologue to the Manimekhalai which in lines 95 and 96
states that the author Sattan read the thirty poems
composing Manimekhalai, and Ilang 5 -Adiga| listened to
the work with great kindness. The prologue to the
Silappadhikaram likewise refers in lines i o and 1 1 that
when the hunters came and reported what they saw to
I}ang5, Sattan took up the tale, and described the whole
of the story, as it took place, having heard it in certain,
at any rate, of its divisions from the Goddess Madhura-
pati, when he was lying asleep in the hall of V dliyam-
balam on that night when the Goddess appeared to
Kannaki and told her why things happe^ned as they did.
Further down in the prologue to this Silappadhikaram,
as the jewel Silambu was what brought about the
tragedy, to illustrate, that to those that erred in admi-
nistration, righteousness will prove the cause of death,
that to women of chastity, the praise of the discerrftng
good people is the reward, and that the consequences of
one’s action will inevitably take effect on him ‘ might
well be written by us Sattan said in reply that, as
the work related to incidents in which the three kings
of the Tamil land were parties, Ilango himself might
4 ma^imekhalai
compose the work. Ilang5 agreed and recited the work,
which, in his turn, Sattan heard with appreciation.
These details and the contemporaneity of the authors
are so far in evidence in the prologues and the epilogues
only. We shall return to this question later. All that
is to our purpose at present is that the two works are
here regarded as constituting one great k^vya, though
they are the work of two separate authors; they were
treated as two works tjjough constituting a single
ntakakUvya.
The scope of the work and its character alike show
great affinity to the Silappadhikaram. Though the
two form a heroic poem, there i^ something of the
dramatic element running through them, and the narra-
tive is incomplete unless the two could be taken
together. Manimekhalai itself begins actually with
Manimekhalai having already attained to the charms of
maidenhood and being the object of affection to the
Chola prince, the heir-apparent of the reigning Chola
monarch. The subject matter of the whole poem there-
fore is the efforts of the prince to gain possession of her,
the resistance that she offered in withstanding this
temptation and her consistent effort through all suffering
to hold on to her own resolution, the attaining by her
to 'the ripeness of mind required for accepting the
teachings of the Buddha and her renunciation ; these are
the incidents that receive treatment in the poem. The
poem opens with the great celebration of the festival to
InSra. Manimekhalai’ s mother Madhavi had already
renounced life, and sends the daughter to fetch flowers
for service; the prince follows her to the garden;
Manimekhalai is spirited away to the Island of Mani-
pallavam where she learnt her past life from a miraculous
Buddha-seat. She returned therefrom again to Kaveri-
THE TOEM
S
pattinam ; the prince still continues to prosecute his
love notwithstanding advice against it. He falls by the
sword of a celestial being, the form of whose wife Mani-
mekhalai had assumed. Manimekhalai is thrown into
prison, from which she gets released. She passes
successfully through all the schemes of the queen to
bring about her death. She learns the teachings of the
various systems, and ultimately the orthodox teaching
of the Buddha from Aravana* Adigal at Kanchi. Such
being the subject matter of the poem, it is clear that it
could not be regarded altogether as a mere narrative
poem of a historical character dealing with the life of the
individual heroine qpncerned, with anything like a bio-
graphical aim. It is a poem first and foremost, and
treats of the subject, whatever be its character, in the
manner of an epic poem and no more. The subject is
one intimately connected with religion and that
introduces its own element of the un-historical in it,
such as the occurrence of miracles of various kinds. It
would therefore, on the face of it, be very difficult to
treat the work as at all of a historical character. His-
torical characters however are introduced, and, not-
withstanding the somewhat miraculous character of
several of the incidents and characters brought upon the
stage, there is still the possibility of a background" of
history to it.
The subject-matter of the works is of a varied
character. The actual subject itself is the life of a young
wealthy merchant of Kaveripattinam. He was born of
a great caravan (mahasarthavaha) merchant, and, as yet
a young ma^n, was married to the daughter of another
merchant of similar dignity. The husband and the
wife, Kovalan and Kannaki, set up separately with the
active assistance of the parents T)f both to lead the life
e
manimSkhalaI
of householders in the city. Kovalan fell in love with a
dancing woman by name Madhavi, a ravishingly charm-
ing beauty. He was so infatuated with her as even
to neglect his comely and chaste wife, and spent away
not only all his property but even the jewels of his wife.
At the conclusion of the great Indra festival at Puhar
(Kaveripattinam), he went out along with Madhavi to
spend <he day in enjoyment on the seashore. In the
course of his stay there,, he discovered, at least he
thought he had discovered, that Madhavi was not per-
haps quite as sincerely attached to him as he thought
she was. Somewhat estranged in feeling, he went
home, and found his wife more tjjjan usually solicitous
to please him as she observed that he was somewhat
troubled in mind. In a moment of contrition, he ex-
plained his position to his wife and regretted that he had
not the means to set up as merchant again and recover
his lost wealth as he intended to do in a distant place
like Madura. Nothing daunted by her previous sacrifices
in this direction, she offered the only valuable jewel
yet left with her, that is, the anklet, for him to make
use of for that purpose. They left the city unknown
the next morning, early enough not to be discovered,
and set forward on their journey to Madura. Having
entered the city, Kbvalan left his wife in charge of a
shepherdess outside the fort and went into the bazaar of
the city to sell the jewel. The queen having lost a
similar jewel some time before, the goldsmith who was
responsible for the theft and to whom by chance Kovalan
offered this for sale, reported that he had discovered the
thief with the jewel in possession. The infatuated
Pandyan king ordered the recovery of the jeVel from the
culprit after decapitating the thief as a punishment.
The virtuous wife got •so indignant at this perpetration
THE POEM
7
of injustice that she brought about the destruction of
the city by fire and passed across the frontier into the
Chera country before putting an end to herself. There
the husband was shown to her and the two together
were taken to the world of gods. Hearing of all this,
and, on the advice of his councillors, the Chera ruler of
the country set up an image of the chaste wife in a
temple which he consecrated to the goddess of Chastity.
Having heard of this calamity, Madhavi who was whole-
hearted and sincere in her affection for Kovalan
renounced life in contrition for her own contribution to
the tragedy, and became a Buddhist noviciate. She
had a child by Kovafen, a girl of great beauty. She had
just reached the age of maidenhood and was so extra-
ordinarily charming that the Chola prince of Puhar,
the heir-apparent, set his heart upon her. The work
Manimekhalai takes up the tale from here and deals with
the life-history of Manimekhalai to the stage of her early
renunciation. It will thus be seen that the story of the
Silappadhikaram really leads up to the story of Mani-
mekhalai, and is from the point of view of epic propriety
hardly complete in itself. Similarly the story of Mani-
mekhalai would be incomplete without the introduction
that is contained in the story of Silappadhikaram for
strict epic requirements.
It will be seen from the above r^sumd that the story
is laid in the three capitals of Tamil India, Puhar,
Madura and Vanji, and the hero and the heroine a>e
taken in the course of the story to all the three capitals.
Manimekhalai is taken in addition to Kanchi in the
course of psogress of her life towards renunciation.
There is, therefore, much scope for the author, if he
cared for it, to throw in a volume of detail, geographical,
historical and social in the course of his treatment of
8
mabiimSkhalai
the story. The main purpose of the author, however,
so far as Manimekhalai is concerned, and, to some
considerable extent the Silappadhikaram as well, is the
exaltation of Buddhism as a religion ; Manimekhalai is
professedly so, and the Silappadhikaram assumes a more
general attitude and contributes to this end only in-
directly. The conscious purpose being the exaltation of
religion and the characters put on the stage being only
the means therefor, the poet has still the latitude for
treating the subject in such a manner as to admit of a
variety of detail otherwise than of a religious or poetical
character. If, therefore, it is possible to collect to-
gether details of a character that could throw light upon
the condition of the country, what could these details
lead up to ? The author in dealing with a particular
subject can deal with it so as to give us an idea of the
subject and its setting at the time that the incidents of
the story are believed to have taken place ; or it may be
that he takes up the story and deals with it so as to draw
a picture — indirect though it be, of times contemporary
with himself ; or to trace an entirely imaginary picture
which has no reality of existence whatsoever. What he
actually does really depends upon his own sweet will
and pleasure to some extent. At the same time, a care-
ful study may give us some notion of what exactly the
author was about in his treatment of the subject. In
order to decide what kind of treatment it is that the
author gives, it would be just as well if we could know
something of the author and the character of his
work.
The author of Manimekhalai is stated to be Sattan,
‘ the grain merchant of Madura’. He was a native of
Madura and was a grain merchant by profession. He
is stated to have been on friendly terms with the Chera
THE POEM
9
ruler Senguttuvan, ^ and on closer terms of appreciative
intimacy with his younger brother, Ilango as he is known)
who had renounced life, and was a resident of one of the
viharas at the east gate of Vanji, his brother’s capital.
The story is that the two princes, the reigning Chera
Senguttuvan and his younger brother, were both seated
in the assembled court of their father. A physiognomist
who was there, looking at the younger of the two,
predicted that he had in his face marks of ‘ a ruler of
men ’. The prince got angry that that prediction should
have been made, and to avoid any possibility of misunder-
standing he took a vow of renouncing life, and did
so forthwith, so that there may be no misunderstanding
of his position, and that no damage may be done to the
legitimate claims of his elder brother.^ That was the
ascetic prince who wrote the Silappadhikaram in the
circumstances already detailed above. His friend, and
the friend of his elder brother, the ruling monarch,
Sattan, was the author of the other poem. The two
works are so connected that one may believe the facts
embodied in the prologues to the two poems that they
were contemporaries, and the works were written with
a design that they should together constitute one com-
plete epic poem. To confirm this, the author of the
Silappadhikaram brings in references to this Sattan in
the body of his work, thus putting it beyond doubt that
Sattan, the author of Manimekhalai was contemporary
with himself and his elder brother. The position there-
fore is actually as it is stated in the prologue to 4ihe
Silappadhikaram that the authors were contemporaries
and the story is to treat of the conten'iporary rulers of
the three kingdoms of the south. This enables us to
^ Silappadhikaram, xxv. 64-66.
2 Ibid,, XXX. 170-183, and xxix, Introd. : prose passage and references
within. •
10 MASTIMEEHALAI
give the real character to the works themselves. We
shall have to revert to this subject later.
The name of Ilango, the author of the Silappadhi-
karam does not figure elsewhere and in other connections.
But we have reference to Sattan. The latter’s
name figures ^among the traditional forty-nine of the
Third Tamil Sangam. A verse contribution of his is
included in the so-called Tiruvalluvamalai said to have
been composed in praise of the Kural of Tiruvalluvar.
Sattan actually quotes the Kural and even textually
incorporates one Kural, in his work. This fact would
certainly prove that he knew the Kural and admired it.
But that need not make him a contemporary of the
author of the Kural from that fact alone. There is only
one poem ascribed to Sattan included in the Sangam
works so-called. That is the only other poem that we
know of as the work of Sattan if that Sattan was the
author of Manimekhalai. Sattan is remembered in
Tamil literary tradition as an uncompromising critic,
among the members of the Sangam. In crticising
others’ works, he used, it appears, to strike his head
with his iron style whenever he found faults of compo-
sition in the works presented to the Sangam for approval.
As a result of repeated blows his head came to be
habituall3^ suppurated, and hence the nickname given
to him ‘ Sattan of the suppurated head ’. His position
among Tamil poets therefore is that of an eminent critic
whose criticism was of unquestionable value and com-
mandecf the respectful acceptance of his contemporaries.
His work, the only one of importance, Manimekhalai
is, as has been said above, a Buddhist work. As such
one would naturally expect it was generally" Buddhists
alone that would regard it as of importance. From
literary tradition that has come down to us, it cannot be
1?HB POEM
11
said that it was exclusively so. Tamil works bearing
on literary criticism sometimes quote from the work.
Tradition has preserved two verses of commendation
from such different people as Ambikapati, son of the
great poet Kamban, and Sivaprak^asvami, Saiva
Matadhipati. This is an indication that the work is really
a work of merit and the approval of the discerning Tamil
public that it is so is in evidence in its inclusion arilong the
five great kavyas of Tamil. ‘Is it then a Sangam work ?
^angam works strictly so-called, are works presented
to the Sangam and approved by them. Later the
expression came to mean no more than that the works
so described were ci a sufficiently classical character
that, had they the chance, they would have met with
the approval of the Sangam. There is nothing in the
work itself, nor is there any tradition that this work of
Sattan was presented to the Sangam at all. The non-
existence of a tradition like that may not necessarily
mean that it was not so presented, but on the evidence
accessible to us, we are not in a position to state that it
was so presented and received the approval of the
Sangam. None the less, it would be correct to describe
it as a Sangam work for the reason that it was a work
that was produced in the age when the Sangam output
was perhaps the highest, and that it is undoubtedly so
in point of quality and eminence such as it is. On the
fact of it therefore, and from the circumstances of its
composition, we have to regard it as a Sangam work.^at
least in the secondary sense of the term. T his position
can be supported by an examination of its literary
character in comparison with other works actually
described as Sangam works. It is possible to collect
together linguistic and grammatical details from which
to prove for it an age different from that of the
ma^imekhalai
Silappadhikaram as had been attempted more than once ~
recently. With a great poet such minutiae will perhaps
lead to illusory inferences. The general literary cast,
similarity of ideas and thoughts on connected subjects
and such other elements that go to make up the general
literary character would perhaps be more certain evidence
of contemporaneity, and such could be adduced in
favour of the position that the Manimekhalai is a work
of the Sangam age. •Its literary affinity to the
Silappadhikaram could be placed beyond doubt as one
could find easily numbers of passages ^ where the same
ideas are expressed in almost identical terms. The
similarity is so great that, unless we can postulate that
the one copied from the other deliberately no other
explanation is possible than that the two works were
produced in the same literary atmosphere. One has ^
only to read through the excellent edition of our eminent
Pandit Mahamahopadhyaya V. Swaminatha Aiyar to see
how closely the works are to each other in point of
literary character. Linguistic details notwithstanding,
Manimekhalai may be taken to be of the same age as
the' Silappadhikaram, and that the two belong
undoubtedly to the age of the Sangam whatever that be.
II *1*
MANIMEKHALAI : HOW FAR HISTORICAL
IN CHARACTER?
■: I
Manimekhalai, as was already remarked, is a poem :
first and foremost; whatever subject is actually
brought into it is therefore treated poetically. That ^
must be carefully borne in mind in examining it for any
purpose that one may have in view. As an epic poem
it sets before itself the d'idactic purpose of enforcing the
ITS HISTORICAL CHARACTER
13
superiority of Buddhism as a religion both as conducive
to good conduct in this life and happiness in the life
hereafter. The fact that it is primarily a poetical work,
and the feature that its object is the exaltation of
Buddhism, neither of them, pyima facie holds out
promise of anything historical being found in the work.
Nevertheless the poem could contain, and does contain,
much that may be considered historical provided the
material is used on principles of sound criticism. To
complicate matters still further the poet indulges his
fancy in the introduction of the supernatural in the
poem as well he might in poetry of this character.
This undoubtedly adds to the difficulty, but can hardly
be held to invalidate the use of such historical material
as may be found in it. The introduction of the mira-
culous and the supernatural. is an essential part of works
on Buddhism even of a professedly historical character.
Poetical use of the miraculous does not make it any
more efficacious in transforming the historical into the
fabulous. The actual difficulty is to discriminate judi-
ciously what is historical from that which is unhistorical
in the whole work.
The scene of the poem is laid in the Tamil land, and,
by design or because the actual subject forced it on him,
the author has to deal with the Chola and the Chera
country and the town of Kanchi in the course of the
poem. The companion work leaves out Kanchi and
takes instead Madura and the Pandyan country.. Why
should the poets do this ? As was already indicated, tTie
poets do this either because they took up a subject
which is of a historical character and the incidents
connected with the subject have reference to these
places, or because whatever be the character of the
subject, they bring in these places with a design to say
14 maistimEkhalai
something regarding them and their rulers by way of
compliment. As a matter of fact, the two possible
motives seem to be combined in the actual works, if the
passages of the prologues already referred to are to be
relied on at all as indicating correctly the scope of the
poem. The two works Silappadhikaram and Mani-
mekhalai were composed with a view to their constituting
a single epic, though forming two works. Apart from
the prologue, so much is <■ indicated in thd concluding
passage of the Silappadhikaram itself. We have no
reason to hold the view that the prologues were
composed so late in point of time that they cease to be
authority on the work itself. A prologue to a poem in
Tamil could be composed by one of the following : —
the author’s teacher, the author’s fellow disciple, the
author’s pupil, or his commentator. It is the last one
that could be far removed in point of time. All the
other three would be, at least can be regarded, contem-
poraries. The question therefore for us is whether we
have any valid reason for regarding the prologue to the
Manimekhalai, or the Silappadhikaram for the matter
of that, was composed by the commentator. Mani-
mekhalai does not appear to have had a commentatory
except our venerable Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit
Swaminatha Aiyar’s ; and surely he did not compose its
prologue. In regard to the Silappadhikaram, we have
two commentators, and neither of the commentators
seems to have composed the prologue in question. Even
granting for the sake of argument, that these might have
composed it, the matter contained therein would still
have to be considered as embodying orthodpx tradition
coming down in unbroken succession. When the matter
of the prologues gets confirmed by references in the
body of the poems thefiiselves, we have no alternative
ITS HISTORICAL CHARACTER
IS
but to accept that the prologues were of contemporary
composition, at any rate not far removed from contem-
porary times. That Sattan and Ilango, the two authors,
were contemporaries can be proved by reference to
Sattan in the Silappadhikaram, not in the prologue or
the epilogue, but in the body of the work itself. *
There is one other feature peculiar to these works
which must be allowed great weight in this discussion.
The authors of the poems are not shown to us as later
writers using it may be a historical subject, relating to
the rulers of the three far-famed kingdoms of the Tamil
land. They are brought into relation to the three
rulers whose deeds are described in the poems
themselves. The author of the Silappadhikaram, was no
other than the younger brother of the Chera ruler,
Senguttuvan who built the temple to the goddess of
chastity and consecrated it. The grain merchant
Sattan, who is the author of the other poem was a friend
of this self-same ruler and of his saintly younger brother.
This feature of the authors of the poems introduces a
further complication which makes the understanding of
the poems in their historical drift very difficult. The
difficulty consists in this, if they are contemporaries and
actually wrote of contemporary incidents, how could
they introduce so much of the supernatural in the poemS ?
And what is perhaps more, how are we to interpret the
introduction of the supernatural that occurs in the
poems ?
The miraculous and the supernatural form ati
integral part of any narrative or even regular but
indigenous history connected with Buddhism. No
present occiirrence and not a Buddhist character is
- Bk. XXV, 11. 64-66 and.ll. 100-106.
jg MAIiriMEKHALAI
satisfactorily explained, according them, unless it
be by. actual reference to that which had taken
place in a previous existence. So much so that the
identical incidents, almost in identical form and details,
are brought in usually to expound occurrences even of a
natural character. One has only to compare what is
regarded as the actual teaching of the Buddha himself
to appreciate this position. Many of the so-called
Jataka stories are based on this understanding, a.nd if
the Buddha could be regarded as being autobiogra-
phical in these stories, it is not difficult to understand
that a writer who attempts to describe any particular
period would naturally indulge in similar fancies. _ If
so, it will not be difficult to separate that which
may be regarded as actual from that which is purely
ideal. _
The scene of the story is laid, as was already stated,
in Tamil India. An authoritative Tamil tradition again
takes it that the story detailed in the poems has reference
to things that took place actually. This need not neces-
sarily be interpreted to mean that the incidents took place
in the manner that the poet has described them. It is
open to the poets to weave a web of fancy and raise an
ideal picture round the actual incident. The commen-
tator Adiyarkunallar, discussing the sub-divisions of the
work Silappadhikaram, makes some apt remarks in
regard to this particular point. He refers to the bigger
divisions being named kundam and the smaller divisions
!^dau The Silappadhikaram actually consists of three
kmtdams relating respectively to Puhar, Madura and
Vaiiji. Each one of these kandams is divided into
books, the total number of which for the Work is thirty.
The commentator discusses the point that these smaller
sub-divisions should ^be called k^dai, which is only
ITS HISTORICAL CHARACTER
17
another form of kadai. He notes that what is called
kadai in Tamil is regarded on authority as fiction ; but
states that these works are better described as nadahakap-
piyam, or epic poems of a dramatic character. He further
describes that the work under discussion, Silappadhi-
karam, has the features of a drama, and has for its hero , a
real man, and describes, poetically without doubt, that
w'hich actually took place. In other words Silappadhi-
karam gives an idealized ^description of the actual
occurrences in the life of the hero. The division of
Manimekhalai into parts also takes the same name.
There is a variant name for this, which is pattu. The
latter would simply, mean poem, each canto or book
constituting by itself a poem. The other name is kadai
as in the Silappadhikaram and deals with one of the
incidents in the series that constituted the life of the
heroine dealt with in the poem. Hence the opinion of
Tamil literary men seems to be that the two poems deal
with incidents of a historical character, but, like Shakes-
peare’s historical dramas, thrown into a somewhat
idealized form satisfying the demands of epic composi-
tion. It is on this basis that we shall have to examine
the work, whether our purpose be literary criticism or
history.
A connected question with this would naturally be,
in the circumstances, whether the authors actually tried
to project on the canvas of their poetry the features of
their own times as they saw them around, them-
selves, or those features which they imagined were tile
features that actually existed, according to their under-
standing of it, in the time of the hero or the heroine.
These alternative possibilities would arise if the poems
deal with subjects that had actually lived and passed
away into history. These two poems take their subjects
3 •
18 MANIMEKHALAI
from contemporary life, as was already pointed out in
connection with the life of the authors. The matter is
therefore to some extent simplified for us in the fact that
the authors have chosen for their poetical treatment
subjects contemporary with themselves. Therefore
whatever of historical, geographical and social features
that we may discern in the poem and which we may
find itrpossible to extricate from the encumbrances of
poetical idealizing, must necessarily have reference to
the times of the authors themselves. To that extent we
are here face to face with pictures of history, idealized
though they be.
Manimekhalai begins with the great festival to Indra
in Puhar. Throughout the whole work Puhar is spoken
of as the Chola capital and even where its destruction
by the sea is referred to, no other capital of the Cholas
finds mention. Puhar, therefore, may be taken to have
been the habitual capital of the Cholas in the course
of the story. The ruler of the kingdom was one who is
described variously as Nedumudi Killi or Mavan Killi
or Vel-ver Killi or even Kalar Killi. He married in the
family of the Mahabalis or the Banas,^ and his queen’s
name is given as Slrti. He had a younger brother by
name Ilarh Killi who was ruling over Kanchi at the time
wh&n Manimekhalai arrived in the city. That would
mean that Kanchi was a viceroyalty of the Cholas, and
was at the time being governed by a royal prince. In
other words, it was of sufficient importance to be regarded
as'^a palatine viceroyalty. This Ilarh Killi, the viceroy
of Kanchi, won for his elder brother Mavan Killi a victory
against the allied Chera and Pandya at a place called
Kariyaru.®
^ 5ciXj 11, 50-5^,
^ ^ xix, 11. 12Q-12S an4 xxviii, p. 172,
ITS HISTORICAL CHARACTER 19
In discussing the circumstances under which Puhar,
at least a part of it, was destroyed by the sea, we are
given the information that seems actually to be a refer-
ence to the birth of Tondaiman Ilarfi-Tiraiyan, who, as
ruler of Kanchl, became a very important figure in the
age of the Sangan. The Chola ruler for the time being
entered into a liaison with a Naga princess, namely, Pili-
va|ai, the daughter of Valai Vanan, ruler of Naga. Nadu.
She stayed with him for aboyt a month, and went away
from him without any intimation. When she had
become mother of a son, she sent the baby from Marii-
pallavam through a sea-going merchant Kambala Setty,
whose ship touched, the island on its way. When he
had arrived within sight of the shore, he suffered ship-
wreck, and, in the resulting confusion, lost sight of the
baby. He took it, therefore, that the baby had died in
the accident and so reported the matter to the king in the
discharge of his responsibility to him. The king was so
upset in his search for the baby that he did not issue the
instructions for carrying out the arrangements for the
celebration of the annual festival to Indra. On account
of this remissness, the goddess Manimekhalai brought
about the destruction of Puhar by the sea. So much of the ,
story is under reference in Manimekhalai itself. It agrees
so far with the details given of the birth of Tondaihan
Ilarh-Tiraiyan in other Sangam Poems that it is
ordinarily taken to refer to the birth of that chief. The
baby was obviously alive and had been subsequently
brought to the king. Recognizing by the mark, previously
agreed upon, which was no more than a sprig of the
creeper ton^i (Indian Caper, Cafhalandra Indicd) tied
to the ankle he apparently brought him up as a prince,
and in course of time he grew up to be a ruler of Kanchi.
This identification rests merely, upon the probability of
20
MAJvriMEEHALAI
the case and not upon the certainty of a knowledge of
established identity. But so many of the details
connected with the first story are in agreement with the
other that it is very probable that they refer to the same
incident, the birth of Tondaman I|am-Tiraiyan. We
shall revert to the importance of this particular point
later.
So ^ar as there are references to the Pandyan king-
dom in this work, Madura was all through the capital
and is referred to as Dakshina Madura, and the contem-
porary ruler is referred to as ‘ Seliyan of the beautiful
car’. The alternative capital of the Pandyas, Korkai, is
also referred to. Beyond that there.is not much that is
said about Madura unless it be that the existence of a
temple of the ‘ goddess of Learning ’ is considered of
sufficient importance for the purpose. Coming to the
third capital, Vanji, of the Cheras, there is much more
said of it, than of the Pandyan country or of its capital.
It is in reference, as under the rule of Senguttu-
van at the time, and Senguttuvan’s extensive
dominions and of his invasion of northern India are
also referred to. The other details connected with
his war across the Ganges and his enemies are also
specifically mentioned here as in other works. In
speaking of the battle of Kariyaru referred to before, V anji
is stated to be the place wherefrom the invasion started.
There is an elaborate description of the town of Kanchi
where Manimekhalai ultimately attained to the enlighten-
ment required as a preliminary to her final renunciation.
It is said that, at the time of her arrival, Kanchi had
been suffering from a very severe famine, and she was
actually directed to go there for the purpose of relieving
ITS HISTORICAL CHARACTER
21
the distress. It is in that connection that Kanchi is
said to have been under the rule of Ilaih Killi who
built for Manimekhalai a new vihura with a chaitya
and appurtenances necessary for it. So during the
period to which the story of Manimekhalai may be
said to refer, Kanchi was still a Chola viceroyalty,
and the viceroy at the time was a younger brother of
the reigning Chola. There are other matters which may
be regarded as of a historical^character, though they are
not exactly of the form of definite details of geography
or history.
Communication from place to place seems to have
been comparatively, free and easy. When Puhar
suffered destruction by the sea, people could move out,
some to Vanji, some to Kanchi. Pilgrimages between
distant places such as the extreme north and the extreme
south, seem to have been fair and frequent. Commercial
activity seems to have been great and protection to people
offered by the authorities for the time being efficient.
Trade was carried on over land and over sea, regular
caravans seem to have gone the one way, and fleets of
ships over the sea periodically. Navigation was not
altogether free from danger due to wind and weather, as
well as other circumstances such as being stranded on the
shores of islands inhabited by savages. Notwith-
standing the danger, there seems to have been
regular communication between lands across the seas.
The island of Savaham finds mention, and it is described
as a kingdom of considerable importance, although the
ruler, a Buddhist is described with all the romantic
embellishments of a prospective Buddha. Invasions could
be readily undertaken as far north as the Himalayas, and
the specific statement that the Ganges had to be crossed
by means of boats and that wars, were actually carried on
f
22 MAlillMEKHALAI
on the northern banks of it cannot be dismissed altogether,
as figments of the imagination. Whether the actual war
as described took place or no, they had ideas that such
were feasible.
One other feature must be referred to here. The
religious condition of Puhar, of which we get a fairly,
full description, was what was to be expected of a
flourishing Hindu capital. It is not merely a question
of confusion of languages but even confusion of religions.
Temples to the gods of the Hindu pantheon, viharas set
apart for the votaries of Buddhism, and garden retreats
for the saintly among the Jains lay side by side, at any
rate not far apart of each other. They sometimes
formed part of the city but were generally located just
outside the inner city and the fortress. Votaries of
other religions lived side by side and taught, unmolested
by others. Sometimes the one, sometimes the other set
had the superiority in one or other of the branches of
religious learning. Manimekhalai found enough to learn
of Buddhism in the initial stages at Puhar, but she could
gain real insight into the heretical systems only at V anji.
She could get the most orthodox and the authoritative
teaching in Buddhism only from a particular teacher, and
he happened to be at Kan chi at the time. He was in
Puhar before, so that these religious teachers were
allowed to teach what they believed, unmolested in the
one royal capital as in the other viceregal capital or else-
where a,s they actually liked. Being a Buddhist work it
tlfrows into prominent relief the condition of Buddhism
and Buddhist shrines. But there are references scattered
through the work to other shrines and to the^ votaries of
other religions that enable us to infer that not only
Buddhism, but Jainism and all the different forms of
Hinduism extending from the extreme theism of the
ITS HISTORICAL CHARACTER
23
Saiva or Vaishnava to the complete atheism of the
Lokayata or the Bhutavadi flourished alike. Learning
was highly respected, and learned men of all persuasions
alike were treated with respect whatever their ultimate
convictions.
There is one feature that is referred to here which
also finds reference in the Silappadhikaram, a festival to
Indra celebrated with great hlat in the city of T'uhar.
A festival to Indra seems to be more or less a common
festival and celebrated all over India. But that which
was celebrated in Puhar had a ^peculiar significance.
There is nothing otherwise to indicate that it was a festi-
val peculiar to this particular city. That festival lasted
for twenty-eight days in the month of Chaitra (April-
May) and came to a close, as near as possible on the full,
moon day. The celebration in Puhar was of such a
character that the heaven of Indra itself was vacated by
the Gods coming down to witness the festival in Puhar.
This festival was ordained at the special request of one
of the ancient Cholas and hence the peculiar importance
of it in Puhar. It is the forgetting of the annual cele-
bration of this festival that was directly responsible for
the destruction, partial or complete, of Puhar in the
course of the story of Manimekhalai.
Having said so much about what may be considered
historical details in the work, it is now necessary to con-
sider the supernatural elements introduced in the poem.
What are the elements themselves How are they used
in the poem ? Can we regard the human features of tke
poem as historical notwithstanding the fact that they are
mixed up with the supernatural ! These are features
which must*be investigated before we can proceed to use
the historical material contained in the work. The first
general remark that could; be rnade in regard to this
m
m
24
MANIMEKHALAI
subject is that the author takes care to introduce the super-
natural element only where it comes in appropriately in
accordance with the accepted traditions of India, perhaps
the more peculiar Buddhist thought. The characters
and the main incidents where the supernatural occurs in
the course of the poem may be broadly stated as these ;
the goddess Manimekhala undoubtedly shows super-
naturaUeatures of character, Manimekhalai herself ripens
into the possession of supernormal powers such as, being
able to fly in the air, to be independent of hunger, and
to be unaffected by physical pain to which she had been
subjected at one stage. Vidyadharas and Vidyadharis
are introduced with all the supernajtural embellishments
to which Hindu tradition always gave them credit.
Buddhist holy men are described with powers super-
human which is included in the ordinary Buddhist
notions of the attainment of what they called rddhi,
which in the language of Hindu thought would be
described as the siddhis or extraordinary powers. There
is also introduced a speaking statue, gods and goddesses
speakingfrom their images, a supernatural never-exhaust-
ing bowl, a supernatural Buddha-seat which let one into
the secrets of one’s past existence. Of these elements
most of them were really believed in and cannot be said
even now not to be believed in by Indians as a whole,
Buddhists and Hindus. They are of the nature of
current convictions regarding the existence of the super-
natural and of their intervention in human affairs. But
the point for note is that the poet never allows the super-
natural element play in human character proper. The
two exceptions to this would be Manimekhalai herself
who is described as a human character and Aputra, in
whose character supernatural features are found. But
the extraordinary powers that Manimekhalai acquires
ITS HISTORICAL CHARACTER
25
are, according to Buddhists, attainable by all human
beings with sufficient preparation, if they should attain to
the requisite degree of ripening. But there is the point
to be noted still that Manimekhalai is a character, though
human in form and features to begin with, so far idealized
as a ripe subject for the reception of the teaching of the
Buddha that she attains normally to the possession of
these extraordinary powers. This is brought oift even
more clearly in the case of the other character, Aputra
who is again treated more or less as one who would
ultimately ripen into a B.odhisattva. In any critical
judgment, therefore, of these characters, it must be borne
in mind that contemporary Buddhist thought admitted
of the attainment of extraordinary, and even superhuman,
powers by fit subjects for this exaltation. Subjects that
are actually brought in as ordinary human characters on
the stage of the poem are treated actually as such and the
poet thus enables one to clearly demarcate where the
human element ends and the superhuman element begins.
A careful study of the poem throughout, in all its full-
ness of detail, would leave the impression clear on the
mind of a critical reader that the poet wants the human
element to be so understood and as being quite distinct
from the superhuman. The superhuman itself is so
distinctly treated that there can be no mistake that In
those cases he is dealing actually with the supernatural
element and not ordinary human beings. The author
carries this distinction to a point of fineness when the
heroine returns to Manipallavam with Aputra from
his kingdom, Savakam. Manimekhalai as usual flies
through the ^ir. Aputra on the contrary has to order
a fleet to be got ready to take him to the same
destination. Therefore we are distinctly in a position to
examine the human element in the poem as such in all
4 ■ ^
26 MANIMEKHALAI
its human aspects and human surroundings just to find
out how far this proves to be historical. The superhuman
elements themselves can easily be proved to be not
beyond the credibility of an average Buddhist of the time
to which the author obviously makes reference. It
would, therefore, seem justifiable that, notwithstanding
the element of the supernatural in the poem, there is
muchnn it that is capable of being used for purposes of
history, not only history c^f a general character, but also
in regard to even the specific details and incidents.
It has been described above that the Manimekhalai
is a professedly Buddhist work. As such its cultural
character can be expected to be , more or less North
Indian and Sanskritic. But great poet that the author
is, he certainly draws very freely upon Buddhist as well
as Sanskritic culture. A careful reader would notice
that he does not sacrifice any of the classical South
Indian or Tamil features of his poem by so doing. It
may almost be said that he is hardly conscious that he
is producing in his work the blend of the two cultures.
It is a Tamil classic out and out, but a Tamil classic
with a great infusion of Sanskrit culture, producing the
impression that the author is hardly aware of anything
like a distinction between the two. In those circum-
stances, there is hardly room for the feeling that there
was any hostility. Even so, there are features in it
which are worthy of special remark.
Anjong these perhaps the most noteworthy would be
the Agastya tradition. Readers of the Buddhist Jatakas
know that Agastya there appears in a form, in the two
Jatakas in which Agastya’s life history comes in for
discussion, that the Tamilian knows nothing of. Such
tradition as the Manimekhalai records of him is tradition
which is more in accord' with the Brahmanical form of if
M'S HISTORICAL CHARACTER 2l
than Buddhist, although it is a Buddhist author and a
Buddhist work that make reference to it.
A'gastya is referred to as one from whose water-pot
the Kaveri took its rise. The story is related that king
Kantama prayed of Agastya for a stream of water that
would fertilize his territory, and with Agastya’ s consent
as it were, the water that he had in his water-pot was
upset and flowed eastwards from it till it reached the
sea. At the place where it w^s to enter the sea there
lived an old lady, the goddess of India, Champapati
as she is called in Tamil, the goddess of ‘ the Jambuland,’
the common name for India. Agastya directed the
Kaveri to make her .obeisance to the venerable lady.
The goddess Kaveri worshipped her, and was received
very kindly by her ; and thereafter she became the
daughter of the Chola country, as it were, fertilizing with
her streams the land over which the Cholas ruled, and
which formed part of ‘ Bharatam ’ as it is called in
Tamil, the Bharatavarsha of Sanskrit.
The second place in which Agastya comes in for
reference ^ is where he is said to have advised the Chola
who destroyed ‘ the moving fortress in the air of the
Rakshasas ’ by way of rendering assistance to Indra. On
the advice of Agastya this Chola requested Indra that
he might be personally present in the capital city 'bf
Puhar or Kaveripattinam during the twenty-eight days’
festival which he had undertaken to celebrate in honour
of the god, his friend. The river Kaveri itself wa^ given
that name because she came there in response to thS
request of the Chola ruler Kavera who performed a
penance in one of the small forests adjacent to the town^
of Puhar.
^ Canto i, 11. 3-9.
* Pa*kam, 11. 9-2S ; ill, 11. 55-56,
28 MA^IIMEKHALAl
There is another reference to Agastya in connection
with the same ruler Kantama against whom Parasurama
appeared in his campaign to uproot the Kshatriya race.
Kantama in difficulty sought the advice of Agastya and
in accordance with that advice put the kingdom in charge
of his illegitimate son Kakandan, and remained in hiding
till the danger ^ should pass. In these references
Agastya appears as a holy Rishi, who was habitually in
residence in the Tamil coiyatry, and advised and assisted
the Chola ruler in difficulty as perhaps others as well.
In Tamil literature generally Agastya is associated
with the hill Podiyil and is regarded as being specially
devoted to the interest of the Pandas.
The Ramayana comes in for reference at least in two
incidents. In canto xviii, lines 19 to 26, there is a
reference to the illegitimate love of Indra to Ahalya the
wife of Rishi Gautama. The story occurs in so many
other places that it need not be regarded as exactly taken
from the Ramayana, seeing that the actual connection
of Rama with the revivification of Ahalya is not under
allusion here. The two references to Rama’s bridge
must be held as referring to the Ramayana itself. The
first is in canto v, line 37. In this all that is stated is
that the famous bathing place of Kumari is said to have
‘ teen made by monkeys ’. Nothing more is stated
regarding it and leaves us merely to surmise whether it
is not a reference to Rama’s bridge which is now located
in the island of Ramesvaram, a considerable distance
from where Kumari is. In canto xvii, lines 9 to 16,
however, there is a far clearer and indubitable reference
to the causeway built by the army of monkeys for
Rama who is stated in so many words to have come
xxi, 11. 25-39.
ITS HISTORICAL CHARACTER
29
on earth as a result of the delusion brought upon him by
a curse. The particular point of the reference is that
all the big stones and other material for bridge-building
brought by the monkeys and thrown into the water
disappeared completely without the slightest assistance
to achieving his object, the comparison instituted being
to the great hunger from which Kayasandikai suffered ;
all the quantities of food that she ate vanished without
effect as did the stones that Ae monkeys threw into the
sea when building the bridge. Almost exactly the same
detail is given in the Ramayana in the construction of
the bridge across to Lanka. It must be noted here
that in this context the locality is not actually stated
though taking the two together one may infer that the
tradition in the days of the author of the Manimekhalai
connected Rama’s bridge with Kumari, as in the Ramayana
itself.
One clear incident is under reference from the
Mahabharata, from the Virataparva. In canto iii lines
146 to 148 Arjuna’s appearance in the city of the Virata
king as a eunuch is brought into comparison with the
appearance of the beautiful Manimekhalai in the garb
of a Buddhist nun {bikshuni). There is another
reference which may be to the Mahabharata, but does
actually belong to the Vishunupurana and the Bhagavata.
This is a reference to a peculiar kind of a dance ^ which
Krishna’s son Pradhyumna is said to have danced at the
capital city of Bana, by name Sonagaram. The allusion
here is to Pradhyumna assuming the form of a euntfch
and dancing in the streets of the capital of this Bana-
asura to recover his son Aniruddha who had been thrown
into prison in a love adventure with Usha, Baiia s
Canto in, U. 282-125.
30
MAlJIIMfiKHALAl
daughter. In the Silappadhikaram^ there is a reference
to Krishna having enacted a similar dance. The city of
Sonagaram is not mentioned in the text as such. There
is also a reference to Krishna’s pastoral dance, ^ the dance
of Krishna, his elder brother and sister is brought into
comparison with the movement of a peacock, a peahen
and a royal swan moving about together in the garden.
In another place in the same canto, line 76 to 77, a white
tree and a blue tree are likened to Krishna and Balarama
standing. These instances are under frequent reference
in the Silappadhikaram, and other instances connected
with these in other Sangam works. In the same canto,
lines 51 to 56, there is a reference, to the Vamanava-
tara of Vishnu and the gift that Bali made to him, in
connection with the descent of the Chola queen from
the family of the Banas who traced their descent to
Mahabali himself. There are numbers of other stray
instances, such as Visvamitra’s attempt,^ in an extremity
of hunger, to eat dog’s flesh ; and Agni’s love to the
wives of the seven rishis. ^
There is another reference of importance to another
department of Sanskrit literature. There is a reference
in canto xv to Yaugandharay ana’s appearing as a
diseased beggar in the town of Ujjain, the capital of
Pradhyota to release from prison his sovereign, the
Vatsa king Udayana. He is referred to as the Brahman
Yuhi. This must be a reference either from the
Brhatkatha itself or a similar source elsewhere. The
incident alluded to here is found described in the same
detail in Somadeva’s Kathasarit Sagara and in the
^ Canto vi, 11. 54, SS.
* xix, 11. 65-66.
= xi, 11. 84.
* xviii, 11. 92-S17. M.Bh. iii. 224-26.
(HISTORICAL CHARACTER 31
dharayana of the dramatist Bhasa (lines
Mother important reference to a peculiar
custom of the Chola royal family which regarded
Chola princes dying a natural death as old men,
disgraceful.^ When prince Udayakumara had fallen
by the sword of the Vidyadhara, an old woman of
the city by name Vasantika (Vasantavai) went to
the queen and offered her gonsolation. Admonishing
her not to show her sorrow as a mother for the
death of the son in the presence of the king, she ex-
plained to her as a feature of the Chola royal family that
members of that distinguished family rarely died a
natural death as old men ; when by chance they did so
without falling in battle, attacking the enemy and carry-
ing on an aggressive war, or resisting an invasion by the
enemy in defence of the kingdom, the dead bodies of
such were laid solemnly over a bed of ku^a grass [Poa
cymsuroides) by Brahmans who cut the body and
quartered it as a symbol of their having fallen in battle.
This ceremony, according to the current belief of the
times, ushered them into the Virasvarga, the heaven of
the heroes, which would have been their reward if they
had fallen in battle. The occurrence of the kuSa grass
and the officiating of the Brahman on the occasion would
justify the inference that it was perhaps an imported
ceremony.
These instances selected from among a large num-
ber give us an idea of the result of the contact of
culture between that which may be regarded as South
Indian and Tamil, and North Indian and Sanskrit. The
work is a professedly Buddhist work as was said, and
' jcxii, 11. ii-m
32
MANIMEKHALAI
Buddhism being a northern cult must have brought
along with it much that was northern though not neces-
sarily Sanskritic. It is an open question whether the
earliest Buddhist teaching was embodied in Sanskrit
or one of the Prakrits including Pali. But the details
of culture collected have no reference to Buddhism and
are perhaps all of them Brahmanical in point of
character. The choice has been made advisedly so
that what is attempted to be illustrated is the degree of
contact between the two cultures and their consequent
intermingling. The fact that the author and the work
are professedly Buddhist, makes these all the more
valuable as an indication that the /infusion of Sanskrit
culture was not of the partially religious kind. The
inference therefore seems clear that the contact has
been of considerable standing, and the result, one of
friendly borrowing without narrowness or jealousy.
There is no evidence of hostility in it, notwithstanding
that several of these Brahmanical traditions are
brought in in such a way as to indicate disapproval.
The religious and philosophical tenets that are incorpo-
rated do undoubtedly show Sanskrit influence as in fact
it is inevitable in that connection. But what is to the
purpose here is the flow of Northern culture seems to
have been free, and the incorporation of the elements of
that culture equally free. It is not the characteristic of
Tamil works of this class alone ; but even works of a
more severely Tamil character exhibit that contact no
less decisively. Notwithstanding this free infusion of
Sanskrit culture these classics as well as others, still
could maintain their distinct character as Tamil works
in their method and in their spirit. The infusion of
Sanskrit culture seems to have been generally taken to
be of such benefit that 'undoubtedly later inscriptions
ITS HISTORICAL CHARACTER
33
could place the translation of the Mahabharata into
Tamil on a footing of equal importance with the
establishment of the institution, the Tamil Sangam, in
Madura. A detailed examination of these borrowed
elements in Tamil literature would lead to conclusions
of the first importance both in regard to Tamil literature
itself and in regard to Sanskrit culture generally. A
chronological datum by itself is of no imffortance
whatsoever. But it is of .the first importance in its
bearing upon the development of Indian culture
generally both in its Dravidian and in its Aryan aspects.
If we should succeed in arriving at a tolerably certain
age for the Sangam and the Tamil works associated with
it, it would give us a chronological starting point for
the forward movement of the two cultures as a result of
this fruitful contact. It would enable us to determine
what exactly the state of Dravidian culture at the time
was and what important results flowed from its coming
into contact with Sanskrit at that particular stage of its
development. We would be enabled to throw light,
and undoubtedly important light, upon the stage of
development of Sanskrit culture itself. To illustrate
our position we have only to take up that single incident
drawn incidentally from a free comparison of Yaugandha-
rayana’s appearance at the city of Ujjain in the circum-
stances in which this has been introduced in the Mani-
mekhalai. Scholars are not yet agreed as to the date of
either the Brhatkatha or its translations, even as ‘to how
far the Sanskrit versions of the Paisachi original actual-
ly follow the text. A connected question with this is
the Bhasa groblem which has been receiving a great
deal of attention in recent times. If this single incident
may not do to settle those questions, it may throw its
own particular light upon them and, if a few other
5 *»
I
34
MANIMEKHALAI
specimens like this could be got together, the light that
we gain may be adequate for a reasonable settlement of
the whole question. It would be an interesting question
whether the knowledge that the author of the Manimekha-
lai had of Yaugandharayana’s achievement in Ujjainwas
derived from the Brhatkatha itself, or one of its trans-
lations, or even the drama of Bhasa, Pratigna-Yaugan-
dharaya'ha. That is only so far by the way. The general
conclusions that may be drawm from these elements of
Sanskrit culture in the Tamil classic is to a very great
extent supported by the Sangam classics themselves as
a whole. Scholars argue that the incursion of Sanskrit
culture into the Tamil land was a product of much later
times and therefore works that show that infiltration
must be of a later age. Such an argument is putting
the cart before the horse. It is essential to any con-
clusion of that kind that a serious examination should
be made of the elements of Sanskritic culture in Tamil
before we could formulate a position as to the actual
age of the infusion of this culture. To this end the
examination above made of the elements of Sanskrit
culture in the Manimekhalai may make its own slight
contribution.
" III
MANIMEKHALAI : THE HISTORICAL
MATERIAL AND THE CONCLUSIONS TO
. * WHICH THEY LEAD
Taking only the more prominent features, it was
already pointed out that Manimekhalai refers do the three
royal capitals of the Tamil land and Kanchi. The story
begins with the Chola capital of Puhar, the capital of the
Cholas from the days of* the legendary king Kavera, It
Historical conclusions
35
is generally accepted as a fact that the Chola Karikala
improved it and made it exclusively the capital of the
Cholas in his days. Uraiyur, called Urandai in Tamil,
seems to have shared the honour with it. We can infer
from the Silappadhikaram that the great Chola Karikala
was anterior to the period of the story contained in the
Silappadhikaram itself and of Manimekhalai as well,
perhaps not long anterior. It therefore is in camplete
accord with this tradition, apd Puhar is shown in the
Manimekhalai as in a very high state of prosperity, as it
is in the Silappadhikaram as well. The description
contained in these may be confirmed almost in every
detail by the undoubtedly Sangam work of the famous
poet Rudran Kannan, whose poem Pattinappalai forms
one of the collection Pattu-Pattu. This latter work is a
description of the city in the days of the great ruler Kari-
kala. Therefore the two descriptions are not far apart
of each other in point of time.
The brother of the Chera Senguttuvan, Ilango, des-
cribes himself as the son of a Chola princess, and his
grandfather’s name is described as the Chola, ‘ of the
high car drawn by seven horses.’^ It is possible, with
good reason, to equate him with Karikala, but the equation
is nowhere stated explicitly. His Chola contemporaries
are referred to in the Silappadhikaram at any rate, as'his
cousin in whose behalf he defeated a number of rival
claimants to the Chola throne at a place called Neri-
vayil.^ This contemporary ruler is described, in one
place as Nedumudi Killi,^ in various other places he*is
Killi, which is synonymous with Chola, with various
attributes. , The attributes alone vary; the varying
^ Canto xxix. Introductory prose passage.
* sxvii. 11. 115 ff. and xxviii. 11. 112 If.
xxiv. 29. •
36
MAtJiMEKHALAI
attributes are ‘ Velvel, ‘ Mavan and so on,^ merely
indicative of some feature or other of prosperity or
prowess. At the latter end of the story of Manimekhalai
and, certainly in the later years of his own reign, the city
of Puhar suffered destruction by the sea. The result of
this was that many people abandoned the city and
migrated elsewhere, some temporarily and many others
permanently, and the prosperity of the city seems to
have been, greatly diminished, if not completely des-
troyed, as a result of this calamity.'^ That is as far as we
can go with the story of Manimekhalai. In an undoubted
Sangam poem Sirupanarruppadai of a period perhaps
in the generation following, the thi;ee crowned kings of
Tamil India are described more or less fully, and the
capital of the Cholas is there clearly stated to be
Urandai without any mention of Puhar, which seems to
confirm, though indirectly, what is inferred from the
story of Manimekhalai. Perhaps the Cholas themselves
abandoned Puhar as a capital and went to Uraiyur in
view to the war of succession ending in the battle at Neri-
vayil. The Ceylon tradition connected with Gajabahu’s
visit to India for the first time as an enemy of the Cholas
treats of Uraiyur as the Chola capital and not Puhar. ^
In the details so far gathered from Manimekhalai, the
autiior has taken care not to let the supernatural interfere
with the progress of human history except in regard to
one particular, and, that is, that the destruction of Puhar
was bro,ught about by the disappointment of Indra at his
annual festival having been forgotten to be celebrated,
and, as a consequence, his directing the goddess Mani-
mekhala to bring about the destruction of the city.
^ xxix. 3. 2 127.
® 5 ' Vadi-vel Killi ’ in xxv. 193. ^ xxv. 11. 176 ff.
® Upham’s Mahavam^a, etc., ii, 57-S8 and corresponding parts of
Rajaratnakari and Rajavali. ^
HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS 37
The forgetfulness to celebrate the festival to Indra
referred to in the paragraph above was brought about in
connection with the story, as detailed in the work Mani-
mekhalai itself, of the birth of a son to the Chola by a
Naga princess. The princess goes by the name Pilivalai,
and was the daughter of the valiant king of the iNfagas'by
name Valai Vanan. She appeared unexpectedly and
alone in one of the outer gardens of Puhar wgen the
Chola was taking air one sumsner evening. The appear-
ance of a beautiful damsel overpowered the monarch and
led to their union as a result of love at first sight. After a
month’s stay with him, she left without intimation, and
the distressed king was informed by a Bmiddha Charmia
that she was the daughter of a Naga king, that he would
never see her again, but that he would get from her a
son who would prove to be an ornament to his family.^
This story appears in connection with Tondaman I|arh-
Tiraiyan of Kanchl in another Sangam collection, Pattu-
Pattu. But the full story is not there and the comment-
ator Nacchinarkiniyar actually supplies the details.
According to this source, she left the Chola with an
understanding that she would find means to send his son
to him who was to recognize that son by a twig of the
tondai (Caphalandra Indica, Indian caper) creeper round
his right ankle, undertaking to despatch him by setting
him afloat in a well-protected box. Disregarding all
artistic embellishments in the story it would appear per-
missible to take the two stories as referring to the sair^e
incident, namely, the birth of Tondaman Ilaih-Tiraiyan
who became famous, as ruler of Kanchl in the following
generation. ,That he could not be very far off in point
of time is clearly in evidence in the Sangam poem
%
^ sxiv. 11. 2S ±
38 MANIMEKHALAt
Peruiiibanarruppadai of the poet Radran Kannan, the
author of Pattinappalai. Even granting a whole century
of life to Radran Kannan, it would be barely enough
that he could have been a contemporary with the great
Chola Karikala from whom he received a sumptuous
reward for his Pattinappalai, and lived to celebrate at the
same time prosperous Kanchi under Ilaih-Tiraiyan. The
inference from this is clear, namely, that Kanchi in the
period to which Manimekhalai refers was Kanchi anterior
to the days of Tondaman Ilarh-Tiraiyan, as the Chola
viceroy at Kanchi at the time of Manimekhalai’s visit
was Ilarii Killi, the brother of Nedumudi Killi, the Chola
ruler. Among the number of Killis-'figuring in the Pura-
nanuru^ it is possible to identify the brothers Nedumudi
Killi and his brother Ilarii Killi. Nedumudi was pro-
bably the person who was besieged inUraiyur and Amur
by Nalam Killi, and the number of Killis that figure in
this connection would justify what is stated in regard to
Senguttuvan Chera when he had overcome at Nerivayil
the nine Chola princes that rose against the ruling Chola,
his own cousin.^ It seems therefore justifiable to infer
that, in regard to the Chola ruler and his brother the
viceroy of Kanchi, they were historical rulers, and it may
be^noted that the Manimekhalai ascribes to them nothing
unhistorical.
Coming down to Madura and the Pandya country,
we have but brief references, only two such, to Takkana
Ivjadura^ (Southern Madura) and one to Korkai.'^ The
references to them in the Silappadhikaram are far fuller,
and there is a great deal more that that poem has to tell of
^ Poems 43 to 47.
^ &lappadhikaram xxvii, 11. 115 ff. and xxviii, 11. 112 ff.
® xiii. 105, and xxii. 106. ‘ Tamil Madura ’ in xxv. 139.
^ xiii. 84.
f
HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS
39
Madura than Manimekhalai. Manimekhalai refers to the
ruler as a Seliyan ‘ of the Golden Car ^ This ruler is the
successor of the one who gave up his life in consequence
of his thoughtless perpetration of an act of injustice to
Kannaki. Here again the historical is kept clear of the
supernatural. Coming to the third capital, Vanji, Mani-
mekhalai is brought over there sailing across the air from
Puhar to the fortified capital of the Chera monarch
Senguttuvan. He is referred,to in the connection as one
who had made the limits of the earth itself as the
boundaries of his Malain3,du^ to have carried on a
successful invasion to the north, and, crossing the
Ganges by means of boats, to have defeated Kanaka and
Vijaya and compelled them to carry a supply of stone
for making an image of Kannaki from it.^ That is all
that is said of the Chera Senguttuvan in this poem. But
Senguttuvan and his^ achievements are described in far
greater detail in the Silappadhikaram and one section of
the Sangam collection Padirruppattu.^ The author of
the Silappadhikaram takes care to depict Senguttuvan
as a great ruler, the admiring friend of the poet Sattan,
as having ruled more than fifty years, warring all the
time. His achievements against the north is described
in full detail. Numbers of other battles iri which he was
victorious are mentioned. There are references even to
his achievement against the chieftain Palaiyan of the
Madura country and the victory that he won at Nerivayil
against the Chola rebels in favour of his cousin, the
ruling Chola. Some of these, the achievement agains*
Palaiyan are described more elaborately in the Padirrup-
pattu collection. But what is relevant to the question
here is that all these confirm each other and make him
^ xiii. 84. Pofter may mean merely beaiitifnl. ^ xxvi.
V, ^ ^Bks. sxv“Xxx,
I
40
MANIMEKHALAI
by far the most powerful ruler of his age. It is the
Silappadhikaram that is responsible for the statement in
the body of the work, ^ not merely in the prologue, that
Gajabahu’ of ‘ the Lanka surrounded by the sea ’ was
present at the consecration of the temple to Pattini Devi.
Lanka is defined as surrounded by the seas for very good
reasons. There were other Lankas on the continent of
India, ‘and the attribute therefore is called for in order,
that the ruler of Lanka may not be mistaken for those on
the continent of India.
It is necessary to point out here that a predecessor
of his, very probably an immediate predecessor extended
the territory of the Cheras on the- west coast by annex-
ing by conquest the region of Kongu to it^ and carrying
his conquest further eastward so as to bring under his
influence, if not his rule,^ the territory extending up to
the eastern sea. He is said, in the collection Padir-
ruppattu, * to have celebrated his anointment from the
waters of the two seas in one bath. Other stray re-
ferences we have in the Sangam collection by which the
Kollimalais ^ and the Salem District had been brought
under the control of the Cheras, as also the territory of
the Adiyaman« with its capital at Tagadur, the modern
DharmapurL We see here at work, in the various stages,
ihe aggressive policy of the Chera rulers of the time.
We shall revert to this point further down.
Manimekhalai who had learnt all that the heretical
teachers had to teach at Vanji, happened to see her
grandfather there in the Buddhist vihara outside the
^ xxxi. 160.
® Ibid., Padig:am to Third Ten.
Padirrupbattu, poem 22, 11. lS-16.
Bk. iv
® Kalladandr , Aham 209 ; Kapilar^ Narrinai 370.
® Pddirruppattu, Section VHI, poem 73 and pad'igam.
HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS 41
fortress, and flying again through the air, she goes at
his direction to meet Aravana Adigal and obtain from
him the orthodox teachings of the Buddha. Kanchi
happened to be suffering from a very severe famine, she
was advised to go there chiefly to find use for the in-
exhaustible begging bowl, that she carried in her hand.
She acceded to her grandfather’s request and proceeded
to Kanchi. She was received by Ilarh Killi, the viceroy,
and was allotted accommodation in the south-western
corner of the city in a grove called Dharmadavana,
wherefrom she fed the suffering people from her in-
exhaustible bowl much to the relief of the ruler and the
ruled alike. The grateful viceroy provided for her a
big vihara with all its appurtenances for her residence
in the city and did all else she wanted. She got a
Buddha seat erected and a special ckaitya for holding the
footprints of the Buddha, and received the teaching of
Aravana Adigaj, there, as she was not satisfied with all
that she had learnt of other than Buddhist teachers. She
obviously remained there for the rest of her life as the
fact is referred to in a prophesy made in regard to her
future in the course of the story. It is this Ilaih Killi,
the viceroy of Kanchi apparently, that is said in an
earlier part of the poem, in canto xix, to have won a
victory against the Cheras and the Pandyas at Kariyaru.’'
He carried from the filed of battle, as spoils of war, the
state umbrellas of the enemies which he duly presented
to his brother, and these umbrellas are referred to in an
address to the reigning Chola ruler on the occasion when
his officials carried him the information of the doings of
Manimekhalai in Puhar feeding prisoners from an in-
exhaustible bowl. The question when the battle was
42
MAIjllMEKHALAI
fought would arise from this specific statement that flam
Killi won a victory against the combined Chera and the
Pandya armies at Kariyaru. There are poems in the
Purananuru in celebration of ‘ a Chola who fell in battle at
Kariyaru Therefore we may infer at once that Kariyaru
was a place very probably on the bank of a river in which
the Cholas had to do much fighting against their enemies.
The fighting was not a single incident or a mere battle ;
probably the frontier was exposed to protracted war
where constant vigilance on the part of the Cholas was
required. The reference in the Manimekhalai makes it
clear that the enemy against whom operation had to be
undertaken on that particular occasion was the Chera and
the Pandya combined. But that detail is not stated in
the other connection. So far as this specific statement
goes, it gives a material point for identification of the
locality that this battle was a battle that the Chola
viceroy had to fight against the Chera and the Pandya.
Where is Kariyaru then and when was the battle actu-
ally fought ? The battle was actually fought at a time
anterior to the advent of Manimekhalai in Kanchl, may
be in the reign of Senguttuvan or even anterior. But it
seems likely that it was in Senguttuvan’s reign that the
incident took place. We have already stated that the
im*mediate predecessor of Senguttuvan claimed having
brought the territory of Kongu directly under his rule
and extended his influence across to the eastern sea.
We have also a reference incidently to the fact of the
Slalayaman Kari of Tirukkovilur killing Ori of the Kolli-
malais and making over the territory to the Chera. There-
fore even before Senguttuvan came to thg throne, the
Chera aggression in the east was gradually extending, till
it came into touch with the Chola frontier all along the
line towards their we»t and north-west, The effective
HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS
43
intervention of the Chera Senguttuvan at Nerivayil a
place not far from Trichinopoly again shows that the
territory under the control of the Chera was not very far
from where the battle was actually fought. We may,
therefore, look forward to Kariyaru anywhere along this
frontier, and the battle might well have taken place in
one of these campaigns in the reign of Senguttuvan him-
self. In an aggressive war of the Cheras it is not a very
rare occurrence that the Pan(^a was associated with him,
as in fact it was a normal political relation between the
three Tamil kings of the South that whenever any one
of the three got the dominant position the other two
were certainly opposed to him generally, and got into ah
active alliance against him as occasion offered.
In the passage of the poem where a reference is made
to the victory at Kariyaru the army of invasion is
definitely said to have started from Vanji, the Chera
capital. Among the flags hoisted in front of the army on
the field of battle, the flags of the fish and the bow are
said to have been fluttering. The two points therefore
are clear. The object of the invasion is also unmistaka-
bly stated to be ‘ the desire for land,’ in other words,
earth-hunger, the desire for addition of territory. That
was the character of the invasion which was beaten back
by the viceroy at Kariyaru. The location of the rfver
therefore must be in the vicinity of the Chola frontier,
which would answer to this actual description. It would
at once be clear from this description that the, attack
could not have been delivered anywhere on the frontier
of the Chola kingdom proper, as in that case the army of
the headquarters would have repulsed the invasion, while
it is possible that the younger brother, the viceroy of
Kanchl, might none the less have led the army. In those
circumstances, it is not likely. that the credit of the
Manimekhalai
44
victory would have been assigned solely to the prince,
commander-in-chief though he might have been. The
victory is described as having been won by the viceroy-
prince. It should therefore have been within the limits
of his viceregal authority, and he must have won it
without assistance from the ruling monarch for the time
being. Otherwise the description would be from the
point 0^ view of language somewhat inappropriate. We
would therefore be justified in looking for Kariyaru
somewhere on the frontiers of the viceroyalty of KanchT.
About the time to which this refers, the distribution of
territory was such that between the Chola kingdom
proper and the territory dependent- upon Kanchi, there
was at least one region which had its own chieftain
though that chieftain might have acknowledged allegi-
ance to the Chola ruler for the time being. These
chieftains who, at different periods of the Sangam age,
counted, five, seven, eleven and fourteen, according to
occasions, ruled their own territory and acknowledged
allegiance to one or other of the three crowned kingdoms
as occasion demanded, and asserted their independence
as opportunity offered. It is petty wars among these and
their deep-seated hostility to one another that were
responsible at this time for the extension of the territory
of the Chera through the middle block of territory
comprising within it the territory of Kongu, the chief-
taincy of Adiyaman of Tagadur and the chieftaincy of
Ori round the Kollimalais. There was another chieftain
0f
Pari whose territory seems to have lain still farther west,
or as some take it in the south. There was still another
who does not figure in these transactions, and his
territory lay well within the territory of modern Mysore.
The territory, therefore of Malaiyaman Kari, with his
capital at Tirukkovilur,ccame actually between the Chola
HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS
45
king(3om proper and the province of Kanchl. The
chieftain Kari was at this time in active alliance with the
Cheras whose relative he was and for whom he actually
conquered the territory round Kollimalais as was stated
already. Hence if Kanchi could have been the objective
of attack, assistance from the Chola kingdom could not
always be at hand. It is one of such attacks that is
clearly meant in the actual description of the battle that
is given in this work. Whese could we possibly locate
this Kariyaru ?
Kari at the time seems to have been a common name,
the Tamil equivalent of Sanskrit Krishna, and as common
as the name Krishna is now-a-days was Kari then in the
Tamil country. Of course, it takes other forms more
dialectical and popular. The Malayaman chieftain was
called Kari, as was stated already, and Kariyaru is open
to the interpretation that it was a river which was a
feature of the territory of the chieftain Kari. It does not
happen to be so in this context however. The Editor of
the work with his usual learning and circumspection, has
quoted a verse from the Periyapuratiani in connection
with the life of Tirunavukkarasu or Appar-. Describing
his visit to the holy places of the Saivas, he is said to
have visited the shrine which is named Tiru-Karikkarai.
Omitting the complimentary expletive at the beginning,
the name would stand Karikkarai, the bank of the Kari
river, which may either be the river by name Kari or by
translation black river. Appar is said to have* visited
TiruvMangadu near Arkonam, passed from there to
Tripasur and then after a prolonged journey, crossing
hills and^rjvers, he arrived at Tiru-Karikkarai, wor-
shipped Siva there, and at the next stage of his
march reached Kalahasti. This eleventh- twelfth century
work the PeriyapurUnmi clearly marks out for us the
\
I
46
MAiTIMEKHALAI
itinerary of Appar in the seventh century. Whether
Appar actually did the journey or no, the eleventh century
conviction of the Saivas was that Appar did visit these
shrines, and in all probability visited them in that order.
The passage is certainly very good authority for the
eleventh century geography of this tra<;t, and may not be
altogether fictitious in regard to the seventh century
when the Saiva saint is said to have performed the
journey. Whatever may the actual truth of the
historical fact, the geographical features cannot have
changed so very thoroughly.
Karikkarai may usefully be looked for in what must
have been the high road of communication between
Tirupasur which is near Tiruvallur, and Kalahasti. W’e
know of roadways in this region in the eleventh century
certainly, and references can be quoted even for the
seventh and eighth centuries, to the existence of trunk
roads, two of them at any rate, Vaduhavali East and
Vaduhavali West, one of them described in Sanskrit also
as Andrapatha. Therefore then there must have been a
recognized way for these pilgrims from the holy shrines
of importance like Tirupasur to perhaps the still more
important shrine in Kajahasti itself. Somewhere midway
between, rather nearer to Kalahasti than Tirupasur must
have been the Saiva holy place Karikkarai, Fortunately
for us we do find a Siva temple answering to that
description. There is a place called Ramagiri now,
straight* north of Tiruvallur and on the way to Kalahasti,
somewhere between Nagalapuram and Satyave^u.
As the place is located at present, it is regarded as in
the basin of the river Arani which empties itself into
the sea near the town of Pulicat. But Arani apparently
is not the river Kari, as the place is some distance from
the river itself. The place is none the less called
HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS 47
Karikkarai in inscriptions datable from about the ninth
century up to the days of the great Devaraya II of
Vijayanagar about the middle of the fifteenth century.
It is described by the alternative names, Valisvaram or
Karikkarai, and the god enshrined in the temple is called
Valisvaram Udaiyar or Karikkarai Udaiya Nayanar
according as the name is Sanskrit or Tamil. But if
that is Karikkarai it is not likely to help us very much
so long as we do not find the., river Kari, which exactly is
what we want. There is a river, however, formed of two
small streams, one on each side of the Nagari Hills, the
two uniting and forming what is called the Kalingi river,
which passes through the railway station at Sulurpet, and
empties itself into the Pulicat lake, not far from the salt
manufacturing townlet of Tada. The western stream
which is a respectable distance from Nagalapuram is
called by the name Kalingi and the eastern is now named
Kaleru. The source of the Kaleru is not any prohibitive
distance from the place now called Ramagiri, the
Valisvaram or Karikkarai of olden times. The Collector,
Mr. C. A. Henderson, I.C.S., with whom I discussed the
matter, considers that the identification is perfect
though Ramagiri is not actually on the stream Kaleru, as
.the level of water has gone down considerably through
the centuries. But this defect notwithstanding, it is
near enough on the map to mark the source of the holy
river and perhaps the river has its obscure beginnings in
the Hill Ramagiri itself. Hence the modern Ra?magiri,
the Valisvaram or Karikkarai of the inscriptions and the
Periyapuranam, must mark the spot in which, or in the
immediate yicinity of which, there was a stream Kari.
The Kaleru which takes its rise not far from it is suffici-
ently near to it in geographical location and phonetic
affinity to be equated with each other. The present day
48
MA^TIMEKHALAI
name Kaleru consists of two parts, the latter part ‘ eru ' is
the equivalent of river, the first part ‘Kal ’ must be the
equivalent of black, Kalais black in Tamil and Kannada,
and Kala itself certainly occurs in Telugu meaning black
in Sanskrit compounds, at any rate. It would not be
surprising if the simple word has passed in this as in the
other languages into popular use, its Sanskrit origin not-
withstaMing. Kaleru therefore may be identified with the
Kariyar. The identificatiop may be philologically satis-
factory but it must be proved to be satisfactory geographi-
cally and historically. Kaleru may be taken to be Kariyar
in Tamil. But was that the region that was likely to be
attacked by the combined army of the Chera and the
Pandya advancing against, it may be even, the territory
dependent upon Kanchi ?
All that territory almost up to Nellore itself was
included in the Tamil land in those early times. The
Sangam poems have reference to a Tiraiyan, distinct
from the Tondaman chief, Ilarh Tiraiyan, whose hill is
described as Vengadam (Tirupati) ; his capital was,
according to one Ahananuru poem,^ Pavattiri. Pavat-
tiri can now be satisfactorily identified again from the
Nellore inscriptions with Reddipalem, in Gudur taluk
of ^the Nellore district. Inscriptions in it describe
the place as Pavattiri in ‘ Kadalkonda Kakandi Nadu ’,
Kakandi Nadu that is submerged in the sea. Till a
comparatively late period inscriptic ns in the Gudur
taluq, up to the frontier of the Pulicat lake in its
northern extremity, are in Tamil. The old territory of
the Tiraiyans must have extended as far north as that.
In other words the northern frontier of the territory
^ Poems 85 and 340. In the latter the author Narkirar seems to state that
Fayattiri ]aa<i already ceased to«t)e a prosperous place
HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS
49
dependent upon Kanchi must have been in that region.
The name Kakandi Nadu has its own tale to tell.
Kakandi is the name of Kaveripattinam, and the deriva-
tion of that name is given in the Manimekhalai^ itself.
When Parasurama came to attack the Chola king
Kantama, he took the advice of Agastya and escaped,
.leaving the kingdom in charge of an illegitimate son of
his by name Kakandan, as the latter’s illegitimacy gave
him immunity from attack tjy Parasurama. Hence the
name Kakandi for the Chola capital. The description of
this territory as Kadalkonda Kakandi Nadu would
indicate that it at one time bore the name Kakandi Nadu
which later got submerged in the sea. It is possible
that the name Kakandi was given to it after conquest
by the Cholas whenever that conquest actually took
place, possibly under Karikala.
But the point that requires to be cleared up is why
should the Cheras and the Paudyas go so far out of their
way, in an invasion even if it be against the territory of
Kanchi in the far north. No explanation is given to us
in the works. But the Sangam age is the period when
this had become a sort of debatable frontier between
the Andhras and the Tamils. The Andhra-Sata-
vahanas had at one time extended their territory south-
wards and the fact that their ship coins of pofbi Ifave
been found almost as far south as Cuddalore would show
that their aggression had not always been futile. It must
have been therefore a peculiaiiy dangerous .frontier
for the Tamils and as such liable to easy attack. Blit
beyond this, we have no definite facts to explain why
these two southern kings attacked the Chola kingdom on
their extreme northern frontier in Manimekhalai itself.
7
* X3cii. 11. 3J-38.
50
MAI^flMEKHALAI
The Malayaman chief Kari, however, is said to have
fought single-handed against the Aryas^ and turned
them^ back. This must, in point of time, have been
anterior to the transaction under reference in the
Manimekhalai, as then the Malayaman chief was still in
possession of his territory unmolested.
Haying said so much about this identification, we
may bwng the historical references in the Manimekhalai
to a close by referring to tl;e passage in which’ Kovalan’s
father explains to Manimekhalai how he happened to be
m Vanji at the time. When Manimekhalai visited Vanji
for the purpose of learning the heretical systems, she met
her pandfather there. He explained to her that on
daughter-in-law
at Madura he made up his mind that life was not worth
living and distributed all his wealth and became a lay
discip e of the Buddha. He was living the life of a lay
upasaka for some time in Puhar and came to visit Vanji to
worship aUhe chaitya erected for the Buddha by his own
in the ninth generation.
As the latter was a great friend of the contemporary
vicinitv orth ’ r the immediate
father hir^s^f^ city of Vanji. Manimekhalai’s grand-
father himself arrived there luckily on that day when
Senguttuvan and his royal ladies, spending a
time in the garden, saw a number of Buddhist holy ones
descending from the air anri +oi • °
the earden 0^7 , a ^ “PO" a rock in
me garden. Understanding their holy character W
gurtuvan entertained them, and, as the/ were expound W
the teaching of the Buddha to the kine- hp h' u
arrived there and had the benefit of it at ^
roya, party. Hearing from fhem^l Puht^aT^oj:;
^^Narrinai 170,
HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS 51
to be destroyed by the sea in a short time, he made up
his mind to stay in Vanji alone. They also gave him
the information that Kovalan and his ’wife after a certain
number of births would ultimately reach Nirvana in
their last birth at Kapilavastu. This passage has been
somewhat misunderstood, and Senguttuvan has been
even made the contemporary of the ancestor of Kovalan
in the ninth generation. It seems quite clear however
that Kovalan’s father first tajces up the tale of his arrival
there at Vanji when Sengjttuvan actually entertained
the holy ones, and congratulates himself upon having
had the benefit of what those holy ones had to teach
Senguttuvan and his court. The purpose of his visit
he proceeds to narrate was to offer worship at the chaitya
which his own ancestor built in the outer gardens of the
city of Vanji. The two incidents are thrown together
one after the other, and may be mistaken at a somewhat
casual reading. These passages in the Manimekhalai
state in the clearest terms the contemporaneity of Sen-
guttuvan Chera to the events described in the
Silappadhikaram and the Manimekhalai. It is hardly
necessary for us to go out of the Manimekhalai to
establish this contemporaneity although we have much
valuable evidence to confirm it otherwise in the
Silappadhikaram and the Sangam collection Padirrup-
pattu.
Before concluding this part of the subject, it is
necessary to consider two points of some importance
relevant to the subject. The first of these is such
astronomical details as we get in the Manimekhalai
which may,enable the fixing of a date by calculation, if
need be. The first chronological feature that appears
is where the birthday asterism of the Buddha is given in
canto xi. The point of the » reference is that the
52
MAlSflMEKHALAI
miraculous Buddha-seat is said to appear on the day
when the Buddha himself was born, namely in the season
of the early sun, in the second sign of the zodiac
(Jiis/iabha), in the fourteenth asterism, ‘ the begging
bowl would appear at the same point of time as the
Buddha himself.’ This is followed by a reference that
that day and that hour was that at which Tivatilakai, the
guardian deity was actually giving this information.
The accepted date of the Buddha’s birth is the Nakshatra
Vaisaka^ and the full moon day of Vai'saka (month). The
asterism referred to therefore is Visaka. This is said
here in the poem to be the one following the thirteenth,
that is, the fourteenth asterism. This would be the
fourteenth only if we count it from Krttika and not
from Asvim. The point immediately arises whether
this statement has reference to the period anterior to the
days of Varahamihira who is said to have introduced
‘ Asvinyadi calculation ’, that is, counting from Asmm,
instead of from Krttika. Probably it was so ; at the
same time it is possible to argue that this is a statement
taken from current northern tradition, and may have
reference to any period since the time of the Buddha.
If the author is merely quoting a current tradition like
that, it could offer us no test of time.
The next reference is in canto xii where a prediction
is made that ‘ i6i6 years after the time the Buddha will
appear.’ There are other references besides in the body
of the work to the appearance of the Buddha. In fact,
it Is a stock story. Kovalan and Kannaki were to be
born when the Buddha appears on earth in northern
Magadha and, becoming his direct disciples, were to
attain to nirvatta. Manimekhalai was also informed that
she would come to the end of her present existence in
Kanch), and, after a number of births, she would be born
HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS S3
a man in northern Magadha when the Buddha should be
preaching there, and, becoming his first Savaka (Sravaka)
disciple, would attain nirvana. All these references are
of the nature of predictions and have reference to the
coming Buddha, not to the Buddha that had actually come
and gone. These cannot be drawn into evidence for
purposes of chronology.
The next point for consideration is a reference to
kuccharakudikai, the gutika or a small temple described
as kucchara. Kucchara is the Tamil equivalent of the
word Gurjara in Sanskrit, referring either to the country
or to the people of Gujarat when that had come into
being. The learned commentator has suggested this
equation in the course of his comments. This had been
taken to fix the age of the poem by the fact that the
Gurjaras were not in India before the beginning of the
sixth century A.D. at the earliest. The reference is to
the temple of Champapati, the patron deity of the city of
Puhar. The Mahamahopadhyaya’s interpretation is
based on the tradition that the Gurjaras were well known
artisans in building. There undoubtedly is a later
tradition to that effect. The Gurjaras were good builders
but there are references in the Manimekhalai to artisans
from various countries engaged in the building of the hall
in the royal garden in Puhar, among whom the Gurjaras
as such do not figure. There are references to the people
of Magadha, Avanti, Yavana and Mahratta, but no
reference to the Gurjara at all. This omission is a clear
indication that the reputation of the Gurjaras as experts
in building had not been known then. In a correspond-
ing passage from the Perumkadai, which the Mahamaho-
padhyaya quotes, there is a reference to jewellers from
Magadha, carpenters from Yavana, smiths from Avanti,
painters from Kosala, workmen yi stones from Vatsa, and
54
MAJillMEKHALAi
there is a name gone of expert goldsmiths. In none of
these do we find any reference to the Gurjaras as such.
If the omitted name should be that of the Gurjaras in the
Perumkadai, it would still be workmen in gold, and it is
not the goldsmith that is likely to be under reference in
the gutika, or small temple to the goddess Champapati
in the Chakravalakottam at Puhar. Hence the interpre-
tationethat kucckara refers actually to the Gurjaras is at
Ae very best doubtful. V^ery probably the name Gurjara
itself is derived from a Tamil or Dravidian word
kucchara, and this possibility must be investigated care-
fully. In any case, it cannot be held as decisive evidence
to prove either that the work is later than the sixth
century because of the occurrence of this expression or
that the expression itself is an interpolation. In any
case, with our present knowledge of this particular
question, no decisive inference is possible. The
question, therefore, of the age of Manimekhalai will have
to be decided on other grounds than this.
IV
MANIMEKHALAI : THE PHILOSOPHICAL
SYSTEMS AND THE CONCLUSIONS
. TO WHICH THEY LEAD
In this part we propose to deal with the matter
contained in chapters xxvii, xxix, and xxx of the Mani-
mekhalai. These refer respectively to the heretical
systems of thought, Buddhist logic and Buddhist teach-
ing as such. Chapter xxvii considers ten systems
which ultimately resolve into five different religi-
ous systems according to the work itself. The ten
i ^ generally described as
P amana Vsda of the Vgidika systems, {2) Saiva Vsda,
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
55
(3) Brahma Vsda, (4) NUrayamya or Vaishnava Vada, (5)
Feda Vsda. All these together constituted what Mani-
mekhalai assumed as the heretical systems based on the
Veda. Collectively they may go by one name Vaidika
Vsda, or the teachings which accepted the Veda. Then
follows the system of the Ajivaka as taught by Markali,
Markali Gosala of the Jainaand Buddhist tradition, and
the Niganta or Nirgrantha, with the chief tbacher
‘ Arhat worshipped of all the Jndras’. The first of these
systems is what is generally understood to be distinct
from Jainism throughout its history more or less. But
in South India, as in the Manimekhalai itself, the two
systems are regarded as branches of a common system
which is spoken of as that of the Samanas or Amana,
the Sanskrit Sramana, which had a wider general signi-
ficance than the Tamil equivalents. The authoritative
text-book of the Ajivakas is stated in this work, to be
Navakadir, a work the name of which has not come to
our notice elsewhere in these discussions. The con-
fusion between Jainism and that of the Ajivakas has
been as old as the Divyavadana ascribable to the age of
Asoka in the third century B.C. The Ajivakas are said
to have flourished in a place called Samadanda in the
work Nilakesi as yet unpublished. The Manimekhalai
seems to regard these two as one system that of the
Samanas or Jains. A later Tamil work, Nilakesi and
the Saiva canonical work Sivagnanasiddhi state dis-
tinctly that the two systems were branches of one. In
other places and other conditions the Ajivakas were
confounded* with Buddhists, as in the Kannada country
about the time contemporary with Sivagnanasiddhi.
^ For this confusion between the religion of the Jainas and the Ajivakas
there is very good reason. In the matter of externals, the order instituted by
Markali Gosala, the founder of the Ajivakas, a body of naked ascetics,
56
MAIS'IMEKHALAI
Then follow the three systems Sankhya treated with
some elaboration, Vaiseshika, the substance of which is
given perhaps a little less fully than Sankhya but equally
clearly, and lastly the Bhutavada, the atheistic system,
treated as almost the same as the Lokayata of other
works. After having heard all that the teachers of these
respective systems have had to say in Vanji, Manimekhalai
ridicules the last one, and, still in disguise, satisfied her-
self that she had acquired a competent knowledge of the
‘ Five Systems ’ notwithstanding the fact that she enquired
of the ten teachers and obtained knowledge of their
systems.
We already drew attention to the confusion that
prevailed between the system of the Ajivakas and the
Jains both being regarded as one in the Tamil country.
While the Manimekhalai, in its final passage, seems to
include the two in one, it still treats of the two separate-
ly to the extent of being regarded, if not as independent,
at least as separate systems, which is somewhat unlike
the treatment accorded to it in South India in times
later than this. But it must be noted here in passing
that in the Silappadhikaram Kannaki’s father is said to
have distributed his wealth among the Ajivakas of great
r
resembled the Digambara Jainas. Apart from other similarities in the details
of teaching between the two, there is one point where the similarity is very
close. People are said to be born in six colours in an ascending order,
namely, black, dark blue, yellow, red, golden and white, according to the
Ajivakas. In the process of transmigration people have to pass on in regular
ascending order from one to the other till reaching the white birth, they
could attain to birthlessness. That is the teaching of the Ajivakas accord-
ing^ to the Manimekhalai; that is the teaching of the Ajivakas according
to givagnana Siddhiar ; that is also the teaching of the Jains according to
the Jivakachintamani (Muttiyilambakam 513, and Nachchinarkiniyar’s
comment thereon.). Such closeness of external appearance and internal
conviction would be justiHcation enough if surrounding communities took
the one sect for the other, ''
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
57
penance, and himself became an upusaka^ his wife
having given up life completely by putting an end to
herself, as did Kovalan’s own mother- This is a very
important reference inasmuch as the religion of the
Ajivakas, if it could be so described, was undoubtedly
practised in South India at the time. One other minor
point to note is that the Sankhya system is treated with
a certain degree of fullness. *
Coming to the Vaidika systems, there is much that
would throw light upon the age of the work, although
the point has received no attention so far. Taking up
the pramEna vEda, the first section, there are three
authorities specifically quoted, Veda Vyasa, Krtakoti
and Jaimini. These are stated to have laid down that
the valid pramEnas were ten, eight and six respectively.
Interpreted on the basis of the text itself, Veda Vyasa
must be given credit for the ten, Krtakoti for the eight,
and Jaimini for the six. This is a point of great
importance. The latest translator (the Panini edition)
of the Mimarhsa Sutras of Jaimini, Pandit Mohanlal
Sandal, makes Jaimini responsible for eight pramEnas
and gives the credit of the reduction to six to Sahara,
the commentator, which is obviously a mistake as we
shall show. The Manimekhalai treats of the itn pramE-
nas at the commencement of the chapter more or less
fully, and they are (i) Katchi (Pratyaksha) ; (2) Karuttu,
(Anumana) ; (3) Uvamam (Sans. Upamana) ; (4) Aga-
mam (Sans. Agama, otherwise called Sabda) ; (5)
Aruttapatti (Sans. Arthapatti) ; (6) lyalbu (Sans.
Svabhava) ; (7) Aitiham or Ulahurai (Sans. Aitihya) ;
(8) Abhavam (Sans. Abhava) ; (9) Mitchi or Olibu or
01ivu(Sans. Parisesha) ; (10) Undaneri orUllaneri (Sans
8
Canto xxvii. 11. S3-100,
58
MANIMEKHALAI
Sambhava).^ These are the ttniviSS. pramanas defined
and illustrated and have to be ascribed to Vyasa. The
Manimekhalai itself winds up the discussion with
stating six as the prammias current ‘at the time’ of
the composition of the work. They are, the first five
and the eighth of the ten recited above.^ It would be
desirable to know what the actual eight pramanas are
whicSi are ascribed to the other author if the six of
Manimekhalai should be precognized as that of Jaimini
as we should. To the six given at the end, add
Sambhavam and Aitihyam of the ten ; and these eight
therefore may be ascribed to Krtakoti ® whoever he was.
Krtakoti is a name which has so far remained little
known elsewhere, and I believe up to the present time
there has been no other reference in European works to
this Krtakoti whether it be the name of an author, as
presumably we shall have to take it to be, or of a work.
The truth may be a combination of both. Manime-
khalai has preserved for us the name and this important
detail that he was responsible for the formulating of
eight alone of the ten prmianas as valid. It is therefore
of the utmost importance if we could know something
about this Krtakoti. The other two are well-known
names. It is the science of Mimamsa, one of the
r
^ Veda Vyasa's 10,
= (1)
Pratyaksha.
(4)
Upamana.
(2)
Anumana.
(S)
Arthapatti.
(3)
Sabda.
(6)
Abhava.
f (1)
Pratyaksha
(1)
(5)
Arthapatti.
(6)
(2)
Anumana
(2)
(6)
Abhava
(8)
(3)
Sabda
(4)
(7)
Aitihya
(5)
(4)
Upamana
(3)
(8)
iSambhava
(7)
These two gronpings are given in the Panini translatjpn, the six under
1.1.5 as those of the commentator ; the eight are given in the introduction,
in the analysis of Pada I, These seem really, .to be those of Jaimini "and
Vrttikara respectively, the latter being quoted by gabarasvamin . See
Keith's Karma Mimamsa, p. 8,^the passage quoted below.
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
59
Upangas of the Vedas, that sets itself up to enquire
into the rationale of Vedic sacrifices, etc., and as such
feels called upon to enter into knowledge and the
nature of knowledge ; pramaoias, being means of cogni-
tion, naturally come under its sphere of enquiry. Vida
Vyasa is well known as the author of Uttara Mimarhsa,
Jaimini is equally well known as the author of Purva
Mimarhsa. Who is Krtakoti then ? »
Light comes from a very unexpected quarter in a
work published recently by the late Mahamahopadhyaya
Ganapati Sastri of Trivandrum. We find reference to
this Krtakoti in the Prapanchahrdaya, as the work is
called, under the chapter heading Upanga Prakaranam. ^
^ Chapter iv. pp. 38-50.
Prapanchahrdayam (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, XLV).
Updngaprakaranam ,
Tatra sangopangasya vedasya purvottarakanda sambhinnasya aseshava-
kyartha vicharaparayanam Mimamsa Sastram.
Tadidam vimSatyadhyaya nibaddhain. Tatra shodasa adhyaya nibad-
dham Purvamimamsa Sastra.m purvakandasya dharmavicharaparayanam
Jaiminikrtam ; Tadanyadadhyaya Chatushkam Uttaramimamsa ^astram.
uttarakandasya Brahma vicharaparayanam Vyasakrtam.
Tasya vimSatyadhyaya nibaddhasya Mimamsa Sastrasya Krtakoti nama-
dheyam bhashyam Bddhayanena krtam. Tad granthabahulyabhayadii-
pekshya kinchid samkshiptam Upavarshenakrtam. Tadapi mandamatin
prati dushpratipadam vistirnatvadity upekshya Shodagalakshana Pl^va-
mimamsa Sastramatrasya Devasvamina atisamkshiptam krtam. Bhavada-
senapi krtam Jaiminiya bhashyam. Punardvikande Dharmamimainsa Sastre-
purvasya tantrakandasya Acharya Sabarasvaminatisamkshepena Sankai-
shakandam dvitiyam upekshya krtam bhashyam. Tatha Devatakandasya
Sankarshena. Brahmakandasya Bhagavatpada, Brahraadatta, Bhaskara-
dibhirmatabhedenapi krtam. Tatha Sabarbhashyam vakhyarthamabhail-
amabhyupagamya Bhatta Prabhakarabhyam dvidha vyakhyatam. Tatra
bhavana paratvena Bhattakumarena, niyogaparataya Prabhakarena.
Tasya vimSatjadhayaya nibaddhasya Mimamsa Sastrasyapratyadhyaya-
marthaviSeshah pradargyate. Tatra Mimamsa Sastre pramaiia prameyavi-
charah kriyate. Tatra sangopangovedah pramanam. Prameyah puru-
sharthala . Tasya pramana bhiitasya vedasy a pratyaksbadi laukikapramanaih
shadbhirapramanyam krtakatvanityatva ^paurusheyatva paratantratvadi
60
MA^riMEKHALAI
This work states that it is the function of the Mimamsa
Sastra to determine the meaning of all that is stated
in the is of two parts, Purva and Uttara.
This Mimamsa Sastram, continues the statement, was a
work_ of twenty chapters of which the first sixteen
constitutes the Purva Kanda, which sets itself to enquire
into toe Dharma and is said to have been made by
aiming The remaining part of four chapters forms the
latter part, Uttara Mimamsa, and has for its subject an
^quiiy into Brahmam and' was composed by Vyasa
Then follows the important statement that the science of
Mimamsa thus constituted of twenty chapters had a
commentary by name Krtakoti composed by Bodhayana.
As this commentary was very vast, an abridgment of it
was made by Upavarsha. It is following Upavarsha
that another commentator by name Devasvamin made
^ IS commentary upon the sixteen chapters constituting
to. Purva Mimamsa, having regard to the fact thal
otherwise it was much too large a subject for study. This
Upavarsha. Another commentator, Bhavadasa byname
a so compiled a commentary on the work of Jaimini Of
Aese sixteen chapters, chapters constituting the Purva
Mimamsa or Dharma Kanda as it is called, the first
settinaits following four were called Devata Kanda
setting Itself uptoenquiring into the Devatas, invoked by
the various mantras of the Vedas. Of these the first two
?hr;“to Sabaras^^mto!
there was another commentary by Sankarshana for the
whole of the Devata KMa (bocks ,3 to t6) apart”!
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
61
the Brahma Kanda (books 17 to 20). There were different
commentaries on this last according to difference of views
by venerable commentators, Bhagavatpada, Brahma-
datta, Bhaskara and others. Following Sahara’s com-
mentary, but differing from him in views, Bhatta, and
Prabhakara composed their own two part commentaries.
Bhatta Kumarila’s commentary follows the bhavana, and
Prabhakara, niyoga, etc. •
It is clear from this that the Mimaihsa Sastra was
regarded as one science of twenty books, though
compiled by two authors, Jaimini the first sixteen
chapters, and Vyasa the following four.' The whole
work was commented upon by Bodhayana and the
commentary was called Krtakoti. This is the commen-
tary on the whole work which was abridged by
Upavarsha. It is after Upavarsha that the subject came
to be divided into two, and Devasvamin was responsible
for taking the first sixteen chapters and treating of that
portion as Purva separately. He was followed in this
by Bhavadasa. Up to the time of Devasvamin there-
fore, the work was regarded as one. This is a point of
very great importance, as the Mimariisa is generally
regarded as two in orthodox parlance. The Poem
Manimekhalai treats the Mimaiiisa as one as does the
» * m
Vishnu Purana,^ and not as two separate Sastras as in
later usage.
Another point has come out clear from this, that is,
that Krtakoti was originally the name of the commentary
from which the author himself got the name afterwasds.
^ This division which is quite clear in the Prapanchahrdaya itself is made
clear beyond doubt in the introduction to SarvaSidhanta Sangraha ascribed
to Sankaracharya (§1. 20). This work otherwise confirms the description
given above of the Mimamsa Sastra substantially (^L 17-22 idem).
® HI, vii.
MAIJIIMEKHALAI
62
His real name, however, was Bodhayana, Bodhayana
wrote a commentary on the whole of the Mimarhsa
Sastra of twenty chapters.
Writers on Mimarhsa know of a commentary called
Vrtti, and the commentator is generally spoken as
Vrttikara. So far not much has been known of this
author and who he was. The Sahara Bhashya, the
earliest^ commentary extant, refers to the Vrttikara and
Upavarsha. The Vrttikara has been taken by Jacobi to
have been a commentator who followed Upavarsha be-
cause Sahara uses the honorific Bhagavan before
Upavarsha, and not before the Vrttikara. But Keith
points out that in other connections Bhagavan and
Acharya are used before the term Vrttikara, which
passage Professor Jacobi has overlooked. Dr. Ganganath
Jha tried to identify him with Bhavadasa. As was
pointed out above, Bhavadasa was the second of the
commentators who commented upon the Purva Mimamsa
alone. Keith says ‘ that the extract from the Vrttikara
(Kumarila’s comment on ii. 3, 16) proves that an impor-
tant addition has been made to the teaching of the
Mimarhsa in the shape of the introduction of discussions
of the validity of knowledge and its diverse forms.’
Could we not equate the Vrttikara in these circum-
staiices with Bodhayana, the author of the Krtakoti and
is not the commentary Krtakoti actually referred to as
the Vrtti ? Professor Jacobi made the guess that the
Vrttikara must be Bodhayana and the Prapanchahrdaya
confirms* this. The Manimekhalai reference to Krtakoti
seems to throw welcome light upon the obscurity that
has enshrouded the personality of the Vrttikara quoted.
What egregious mistakes were made in regard to this
Vrttikara becomes clear when the latest work on the
subject, Dasgupta’s History of Indian Philosophy refers
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
63
to him as having commented upon the Sahara Bhashya’^
itself, and the Panini translator of the Purva Mimarhsa
convicts Ramanuja of error in having treated Bodhayana
as the Vrttikara. He makes the remark that Upavarsha
was the first commentator on the Mimarhsa, and offers
the remark in a footnote that some are of opinion that
Bhavadasa was the Vrttikara. How unfounded these
views are seems clear from the extracts abo^ye. For
our present purpose it^ is^ clear that the Manimekhalai
refers to the Mimarhsa Sastra as one and accepts the six
pramS>ms ot Jaimini as current at the time, thus clearly
indicating a period before the Sahara Bhashya. Vyasa
propounded the ten prama-nas^ Krtakoti eight and
Jaimini six. These are under reference in the Sahara
Bhashya and the six are ascribed by mistake to
Sabarasvamin instead of to Jaimini in the Panini office
translation of the Mimarhsa Sastra.
^ P. 370. That Jaimini’s Mlmamsa Sutras (which are with us the founda-
tions of Mimamsa) are only a comprehensive and systematic compilation
of one school is evident from the references he gives to the views in different
matters of other preceding writers who dealt with the subject. These
works are not available now, and we cannot say how much of what Jaimini
has written is his original work and how much of it borrowed. But it may
be said with some degree of confidence that it was deemed so masterly a
work at least of one school that it has survived all other attempts that were
made before him. Jaimini’s Mimamsa Sutras were probably written about
200 B.c. and are now the groundwork of the Mimamsa S3«stem.
Commentaries were written on it by various persons such as Bhartrmitra
(alluded to in Nyayaratnakara, verse 10 of Slokavarttika) , Bhavadasa,
fPratijhasutra 63) Hari and Upavarsha (mentioned in Sastradipika) . It
is probable that at least some of these preceded Sahara, the writer of the
famous commentaries known as the ^abar a- bhashya. It is difScult to say
anything about the time in which he flourished. Dr. Ganganath Jha would
have him about 57 b.c. on the evidence of a current verse which speaks of
king Vikramaditya as being the son of Sabarasvamin by a Kshatriya wife.
This Bhashya jpf Sahara is the basis of the later Mimamsa works. It was
commented upon by an unknown , person alluded to as Varttikakara by
Prabhakara and merely referred to as ‘ Yathahuh ’ (as they say) by Kumarila.
Dr. Ganganath Jha says that Prabhakara ’s commentary Brhati on the
Sabara-bhashya was based I upon the worfe^of this Varttikakara,
64
MAl^IMEKHALAI
The late Dr. G. Thibaut’s remarks on Bodhayana
seem apposite here.
^ ‘ It appears that Ramanuja claims, and’ by Hindu
writers is generally admitted, to follow in his bhashya the
authority of Bodhayana, who had composed a vrtti on
the Sutras. Thus we read in the beginning of the Sri-
bhashya (Pandit, New Series vii, p. 163) “ Bhagavad-
Bodhayana-krtam vistirnam brahmasutra vrttim purva-
charyah samkikshipus tapmatanusarena sutraksharani
vyakhyasyante.” Whether the Bodhayana to whom that
vytti\.% ascribed is to be identified with the author of the
Kalpa-sutra, and other works, cannot at present be
decided. ^ But that an ancient vrtti on the Sutras con-
nected with Bodhayana’s name actually existed, there
is no reason to doubt. Short quotations from it are
met with in a few places in the Sri-bhashya, and, as we
have seen above, Sankara’s commentators state that
their author s polemical remarks are directed against the
Vrttikara. In addition to Bodhayana, Ramanuja appeals
to quite a series of ancient teachers, Purvacharyas, who
earned on the tradition as the teaching of the Vedanta
and the meaning of the Sutras.’ ^ This makes the position
clear that presumably the vrittikara under reference is
Bodhayana, and the Vrtti has reference in this context to
the ' on the Brahma Sutras. Is this not the
Bhagavan Acharya Vrttikara of the Sahara Bhashya ii
3,16? Sankara Hn the Vedanta Sutra iii. 3, r, states
clearly that Upayarsha wrote on both the texts’ Purva
anu Uttara Mimarfisa, and Upavarsha is stated in the
Prapanchahrdaya to have merely abridged the vast com-
®od^iayana’s Krtakoti on both the sections of
the Mimamsa, both Dharma kanda and the Brahma kanda.
^ Sacred Books of the East, vol. 268. * Sankara Bhashya, pt. ii.
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS 65
Does not the therefore refer to the Krtakoti of the
Acharya Bodhayana, and could we not therefore take the
Vf ttikara to be Bodhayana himself ?
We have the following references to Krtakoti in other
places. The first is in Sankara’s Samyami Namamala, ix.
of Burnell’s Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Tanjore
Library, p. 47. Here occurs the verse : —
Halabhutistu’ pavarshah Krtakoti Kavischa sah.
This half sloka occurs in tlje dictionary Vaijayanti as
line 308 on page 95, of Oppert’s edition. In the
Trikandasesha, Brahmavarga, sloka 23, also contains
the name :
Upavarsho Halabhutih Krtakotir Ayachitah.
In both these cases it will be seen that the name in
either form Krtakoti Kavi or Krtakoti is identified with
Upavarsha. But the reference in the Vaijayanti and the
Samyaminamamala seems to indicate, in the light of the
Prapanchahrdaya extract, Upavarsha’s abridgment of
the vast commentary Krtakoti, notwithstanding the fact
that the particle Kavi is omitted in the Trikandasesha
quotation. Sucharitamisra’s Kasika, a commentary on
the Sloka- Varttika contains the following reference in a
discussion on the pramanas : —
Nyayavistare hi prasiddha sadharmyat sadhya
sadhanam upamanam ity uktam.
Tatah Parasarya matena arthapttir udahrta,
TaduttarakaJam Tanmatanusarina Krtakotina uktat-
vat.
In the spotavUda'' of the same work occurs the
following ; — •
Atra bha^hyakarena kaha sabdah iti prshtva gak-
araukara visarjaniya iti
^ Ibid., 294. lam indebted to the Pandits of the Government Oriental
Manuscripts Library for some of these refereSces.
9
66
MA5IIMEKHALAI
Bhagavan Upavarsha matena Uttaram dattam.
Tatra Upavarshasya etad darsanam napunarasyeti
bhraiiti nirakaranartham aha Pratyaksha iti !
From these references in Indian Literature that I
have been able to collect, it comes out clearly that Upa-
varsha is the most quoted author in regard to the
commentary on both Purva and Uttara Mimarhsa. He is
referred to even by the name Krtakoti itself, sometimes
with the particle kavi (meaning writer), sometimes with-
out. In deciding the question whether Upavarsha and
the Vrttikara are the same, it is almost clear from the
references given by Professor Keith himself that the two
have to be regarded as distinct. The Prapanchahrdaya
Karma MImamsa by Keith, pp. 7, 8.
‘It is, therefore, not improbable that he is also in error in finding any
reference to the Vijnanavada, for the passage seems to deal with one topic
only, and that the Sunyavada. It follows, accordingly, that the date of the
Vrttikara was probably not later than the fourth century a. D. since, had
he lived later, he would hardly have omitted an explicit discussion of the
tenets of the idealistic school of Buddhism.
‘ The name of the Vrttikara is uncertain. The conjecture that he was
Bbavadasa mentioned in one place by Kumarila, may be dismissed as
wholly without support. The current opinion makes him to be Upavarsha,
who we know from Sankara (Vedanta Sutra, iii. 3, 53) wrote on both the
texts. To this the objection has been brought that in the passage cited from
the Vrttikara by Sabarasvamin there is a reference to Upavarsha with the
epithet Bhagavat, implying that he was in the eyes of the Vrttikara an
autnor of venerable authority. It is probable, however, that the citation
from the Vrttikara is only a resume not a verbatim quotation, and that
Sabarasvamin is responsible for the reference to Upavarsha, the Vrttikara’s
proper name, and for this view support may be derived from the mode in
which the Vrttikara and Upavarsha are referred to by Kumarila elsewhere
(m. 3, 16)*. If this view is rejected, it is possible that he is Bodhayana, who
certainly wrote on the Vedanta Sutra, but this theory is a bare and un-
necessary conjecture, seeing that Bodhayana nowhere else appears as a
Mimamsa authority. Of other presumably early commentators we hear of
Bhartrmitra and Hari, but there is no reason to identify either of these with
the Vrttikara.
‘ The extract from the Vrttikara proves that an important addition has been
made to the teaching of the Mimamsa in the shape of the introduction of
discussions of the validity of kifowledge and its diverse forms,’
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
67
statement is indubitably clear that Upavarsha’s services
consisted in merely abridging the commentary Krtakoti,
and therefore the author of the Krtakoti must be dijfferent
from him. The point of importance for us is whether
the Krtakoti under reference is the Krtakotikavi-Upa-
varsha or Bodhayana, who was actually the author of the
original work Krtakoti on both the sections of the
Mimamsa, Purva and Uttara. The fact that the'Mani-
mekhalai places Krtakoti on a footing with the authors
of the Mimamsa, Vedavyasa and Jaimini, and the
importance that it attaches to his position as one
formulating eight as against the ten of Veda-
vyasa, and the six of Jaimini, it would be fairer to regard
him as Bodhayana rather than Upavarsha. From the
extract quoted above from Sucharitamisra’s Kasika,
Krtakoti came after Vyasa Par^arya in point of time,
and was Vyasa’s follower in point of teaching. Whether
it be the one or the other, the Manimekhalai knows of
the Mimamsa only as a single system and it does not
know of it as two separate systems, as it had come to be
recognized later.
One point before passing out of this discussion, and that
is, that the six systems, as current at the time, are recited
in the Manimekhalai as Lokayata, Bauddha, Sankya,
Naiyayika, Vaiseshika and Mimarhsa. There are several
points to note in regard to this list of six. The orthodox
systems accepted now-a-days consist of three pairs ;
Vaiseshika and Nyaya, Sankhya and Yoga, and |he two
Mimaihsas, Purva and Uttara. These are the accepted
Vaidika systems. The Manimekhalai recital differs in
the following particulars. Mimamsa is still treated as
one ; that means that the work must have been composed
at a time when the Krtakoti and the Upavarsha com-
mentaries were holding the fieWi and the division of
68
MANIMEKHALAI
Devasvamin had not come into existence. The Mani-
melchalai includes Lokayatam and Bauddham amon^ the
Vaidika systems. It has not treated of Lokayata in this
chapter unless we take Lokayata and Bhutavada as
synonymous as indicated in the text, the latter including
the former. It would seem strange that the Bauddha
religion should be included among the systems to which
the Vaidika praftianas applied.* But it is so stated
here. The various system^ quoted in a commentary on
the Vignanamatra Sastra later than Asvagosha’s time^
show a certain similarity to the recital in the Mani-
mekhalai, and peihaps they are both of them referable
to about the same time.
One other significant feature is that the Yoga system
as such is not in reference in the chapter at all. Sankhya
is treated by itself, and without any association with
^According to Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasad Sastri all early
Buddhists from Buddha to Vasubandhtt were indebted to Akshapada for
their pramanas, or instruments of right knowledge.
/- precisely known how many philosophical schools, called
hrihakas by Buddhists, were flourishing just at the time of ASvagosha. The
Nt^ana and the Vintala Klritinirdeca Sutra raention of them
which were exishng at the time of the Buddha. (1) Parana Kagyapa,. (2)
Maskann Gosaliputra. (3) Sanjaya Vairattiputra, (4) Ajita Kek-
kambala (S) Kakada Katyayana. (6) Nirgranta Jnatiputra. In a
commenta^ on the Vtmanamaira sastra however, which is a later produc-
tlrthaka^cdo^X^ are enumerated.
They are (1) the Samkhya school. (2) the Vaigeshika school, (3) the
beKevelS! M school which
tha as the creator, (S) the school which maintains
SitS -171 thr T’ 1 ^ l Space is the
l maintains that Water is the creator. (8)
says that the creation comes from the quarters, (10) the school which
ZInSnl Sf imStSV*"® existence, (11) the school which
ma ntams the immortality of arfaculate sounds, i.e., the JUimamsa school,
sif n? ^ f Materialism. For further references
^rt^ka^ 777- Tetsugaku (Philosophical systems of the
p lS^ Note 2 )’ Awakening of the Faith,
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
69
Yoga^ as in the orthodox acceptation of the six systems.
Professor Jacobi was inclined to take it that among the
various Sutra’' systems the Yoga system of Patanjali is
the latest and refers the system to about the fifth
century. That seems supported by the fact that the
Yoga system finds no mention in the treatment of the
heretical systems in Manimekhalai. Professor Jacobi also
held that the Sankhya system was comparativefy late,
the contrary seems inferable from the recital in the
Manimekhalai. Hence chapter xxvii of the Mani-
mekhalai is of the greatest importance to the history of
Indian culture, Sanskritic as well as Dravidian, and an
attempt at arriving at an approximately correct age for the
classic is not a mere fad of the student of research but is
of the utmost importance to any correct understanding
of the character of Indian development as a whole.
Chapter xxix introduces us to the Buddhist system
of thought though not to the actual teaching of Buddhism
itself. Like the sister systems, this has also its own
particular method of enquiry into the validity of know-
ledge and the actual means of attaining to valid know-
ledge. It is therefore essential to a correct understanding
of the actual teaching of Buddhism that prevailed at the
time that a preliminary enquiry should be made into
knowledge and the means of attaining to that knowle*dge
by a logically valid method. Chapter xxix of the
Manimekhalai therefore presents us with a treatise On
Buddhist logic as taught in the schools of Buddhism at
Kanchi or more generally in the Tamil country. *It
would, therefore, be very useful if we could understand
the treatise^ as a whole first and then compare it with
treatises of other authors, otherwise known to us, if
1 J. A. O. S. 1911, <)p. 1-29.
70
MA1<IIMEKHALAI
possible of the same locality, or of systems that prevailed
in the near vicinity. Luckily for us we have some know-
ledge of a well-known propounder of Buddhism who
hailed from Kanchl, but controverting all over India, and
who had left behind treatises on the subject, which
though considered, till within very recent times, to have
been entirely lost to India, have been preserved in Tibet
and Cnina in correct and complete translations. Quite
recently one or two of these have been discovered in
manuscript in India itself and are likely to be made
available in a complete form soon.
The chapter begins with the statement that the
recognized teacher of Buddhism is Jinendra which is
another name for Buddha, and this name should not be
confounded with Jina Vardhamana or Mahavira, the
founder of Jainism. According to this teacher the accept-
ed pramanas are only two, Pratyaksha and Aniimana.
It is generally assumed that the Buddhists always re-
cognized only two pramatias which, on the face of it,
seems a very unlikely position.^ A certain number of
pramaims must have been enunciated and applied, and
each system. Buddhism among them, must have examin-
ed these, and recognized only those that seemed valid by
a method of inclusion or by that of rejection. It will be
cle&r from the Mariimekhalai that the other four pramunas
were also current at the time which were alike applicable to
Buddhism -p and of these six, Buddhist teachers actually
J PratyS-ksham Kalpanapodam
Nama Jatyadyasamyutam.
2 Mah. Pandit Haraprasad Sastri. J, B. and 0. R. 5., vok viii, p. 23.
‘ For we know distinctly from Chinese and Japanese sctirces that Analogy
and Authority were great polemical m.struments in the Ijands of the early
Buddhists, i.e., all early Buddhists from Buddha to Vasubandhu were in-
debted to Akshapada for their pramanas or polemical instruments of right
knowledge. Maitreya discarded Analogy, and Dignaga discarded Authority,
and made Nyaya pure logic, in Mie English sense of the term/
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
71
selected two by the method of inclusion. Pratyaksha
(Suttunarvu) is defined ‘ they say Suttunarvu is Pratya-
ksha, and leave out of consideration Nama, Jsti, Guna aTid
Kriya, name, class, quality, and action as these could be
included in Anumana.’ Dignaga defined it in his
Prammm Samucc/iaya, as that which is free from illusory
experience, and unconnected with name, genus, etc. ^
xAnumana is said in the work to be of three Icinds :
Karana, Karya and Samanya^ following the other schools
of Hindu thought. It is also described as liable to error.
But one of these Karya anumana is stated to be unerr-
ing. So far the Manimekhalai. Dignaga regards
Anumana as of two kinds : (i) Svartha, for one’s own
knowledge ; (2) Parartha, for the purpose of convincing
others.^ Dignaga comes round, after an analysis, to the
opinion that the second is really included in the first as
there could be no effort at convincing others without being
convinced oneself. Manimekhalai deals with only the
first part, convincing oneself, without any reference what-
soever to the second. According to Dignaga, Anumana
is defined as ‘ the understanding of the meaning by a
reason ’ almost exactly the kUrya-anumana of the Mani-
mekhalai : Pratyaksham Kalpanapodam, Anumanam
lingat Arthadarsanam.^ The Manimekhalai states gene-
rally that the other pramanas^ obviously those referred to
as six at the end of Pranmnavada of book xxvii, are
capable of inclusion in Anumana. ‘ All the remaining
pramWiias being capable of inclusion in Anumanajxi'a.y be
regarded as such. ’ Dignaga on the contrary consid^s
^ Book xxvii. 11. 83-85.
Real perceptjpn, inference, authority, analogy, presumption and absence,-
these and these alone are the pramanas now current. For real the term
used is ‘ mey * — true, that is, free from error — * Kalpanapodam.*
* Pram. Sam.
® Nyaya PraveSa.
9
72
MA^IMEKHALAI
two other pranianas only, namely, Upamana and Subda,
of the four pramanas according to the logicians, particu-
larly, Vatsyayana, and rejects both as not valid treating
each separately. This means that Dignaga is criticizing
Vatsyayana, while the Maiiimekhalai belongs to a period
when Vatsyayana’s teaching had not come into vogue.
Then the other instruments of knowledge, according
to the* Manimekhalai, are Paksha, Hetu, Drishtanta,
Upmaya and Nigatrmna. The work proceeds to define
each and illustrates it by examples. These are obviously
the five limbs (avayava) of a syllogism as accepted by
the Naiyayikas of the Brahmanical systems. The five
names according to them are Pratigiia, Hetu, Udaharana,
Upanaya, Nigamana. It will be seen that only the names
of one and three differ from the Manimekhalai recital, in
the sense of using different words, synonymous though
they are. After dealing with the first three elaborately,
defining and illustrating, the Manimekhalai comes to the
conclusion that the connected Upanaya and Nigamana
may both be included in Drishtanta, and as such, are not
considered separately. Then the work proceeds to
consider the good and the bad applications of the three
Paksha, Hetu, and Drishtanta.
Dignaga, on the contrary, starts with the statement
‘ demonstration and refutation together with their fallacies
are useful in arguing with others, and perception and
inference together with their fallacies are useful for self-
understpding. Seeing these I compiled the Sastra’
(Ifxtroduction to the Nyayapravesa). He proceeds
to state clearly that Paksha, HMu and Drishtanta are the
three limbs of a syllogism, and it is by means of these
that knowledge is imparted clearly to a questioner who
does not understand it already, and enforces the position
by the folio-wing statement ; ‘That these three are there-
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
fore generally spoken of as the three limbs of a syllogism.’
Nyayapravesa is quoted in a very recently published
work Tatvasangraha in the Gaikwad’s Oriental Series.
It is worth observing in regard to this that the Manime-
khalai considers the five limbs and states that the last
two can be included in the third, while the Nyayapravesa
apparently does not find it necessary to consider the last
two at all. The current opinion is that Digna^a was
the logician who reduced the five-limbed syllogism of
Gautama and Vatsyayana to one of three limbs only, thus
giving it the form of an Aristotelian syllogism. ‘ The
most important service Dignaga did was by reducing the
five members of a syllogism as propounded by Akshapada
and Vatsyayana to three, thereby giving it a form more
similar to the Aristotelian Syllogism of three members.’ *
He is also believed to be the first author to have proved the
invalidity of U pamSna’a.ndi Ssbdazs, ^xools, while the Mani-
mekhalai merely states that the two may be included in the
third without in any way asserting their invalidity. This
point of difference between the two should also be noted.
A pakska is valid when it contains a minor term
explicitly stated and a major term also similarly stated,
and a statement that the predicate will actually differ in
other application, as for example, the statement that
sound is non-eternal. In this the dharma or predicate is
either eternal or non-eternal. The hetu or linga or
sadhana is the connecting term, the middle term of
modern logic, which appears in three forms ; either it is
attributed to the subject, or it is ascribed to an example
by analogy, or it is denied to the contrary. Sapakska or
homogeneous statement is that which is contained in a
general statement giving to another subject a predicate
■ Tattvasangraha, voL i. Intr^d., pp. lxxiii-lxx:*fv.
^6 MANIMEKHALAI
incompatible with the predicate of the opponent, as when
a Bauddha tells a tjankhya that sound is destructible not
knowing that he is a believer in the non-destructibility
of sound. (7) Aprasiddha-viseshya is where the subject
or the minor term is unfamiliar to the opponent as when
a Sankhya addressing a Bauddha states that the soul is
capable of animation, the Bauddha being one who does
not be’lieve in the existence of a soul, the state-
ment proves to be incompatible with his own convic-
tion. (8) Aprasiddha-ubhaya consists in both the
minor term and the major term being incompatible as
when a Vaiseshika addressing a Bauddha asserts that
for happiness and all that is associated with it, the
cause is the soul ; — the Bauddha not believing in
soul, nor accepting any connection with it of happi-
ness, neither of them is compatible with his position.
Lastly (9) Aprasiddha sambandham consists in the
assertion of what is the actual conviction of the opponent
as when to a Bauddha it is put that sound is non-
eternal, the Bauddha believing that it is non-eternal,
it is superfluous to prove it to him.
Sattan similarly takes up the fallacious hUu or the
fallacious middle term, and states that they are of three
kinds: (i) Asiddham or unproved, (2) Anaikantikam
or uncertain, (3) Viruddham or contradictory. Then he
shows that the first is of four kinds: (i) UbhaySsiddham,
(2) Anyathosiddham, (3) Siddhusiddham and (4) A'srayS-
sMam. Similarly, the second is of six kinds : (i)
Sc^Em7}am,yd) Asadaranam, (3) Sapafikaikade'saviruddha-
Vtpakkavyapt, (4) Vipakkaikade'saviruddha-Sapakkavyapi,
( 5 ) Idpatyikadesaviruddhi, and (6) Viruddha-Vyabhichari.
/ ' is similarly of four kinds:
(ij Where in the statement of the or d/mrmm,
the major term is contradictory to the S^d/ia^a or the
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
77
middle term, (2) where the Dharmavisesha or the
attribute or the predicate implied in the major term is
contradictory to the middle term Sadhmm, (3) where the
form of the minor term is contradictory to the Sadkana
or the middle term, and (4) when the predicate implied
in the minor term is contradictory to the Sadkana or the
middle term. These are similarly illustrated as in the
u. others. *
Then he passes on to th^ fallacious example, Drish-
tanta abhasa. He divides the Drishtanta into two : —
(i) homogeneous, and (2) heterogeneous. Of these the
former falls into five parts : —
(1) Sadhanadharmavikalam or imperfect middle.
(2) Sadhyadharmavikalam or defective major term.
(3) Ubhayadharmavikalam or defective major and
^ middle.
(4) Ananvayam or non-concomitance and
(5) Viparita-anvayam or contrary concomitance.
The latter or heterogeneous example is similarly of
five kinds ; —
(1) Sadhya-avyavrtti (not heterogeneous from the
opposite of major term).
(2) Sadhana-avyavrtti (not heterogeneous from the
opposite of middle term).
^ (3) Ubhaya-avyavrtti (heterogeneous from neither
> the opposite of the middle term nor the opposite of the
major term).
(4) Avyatireka (a heterogeneous example Rowing
the absence of disconnection between the middle te^
and the major term).
(5) Viparltavyatireka (a heterogeneous example
showing the absence of an inverse disconnection
between the middle term and the major term).
These again are fully explained and illustrated, the
78
manimekhalai
definitions and illustrations alike being almost identifi-
able with what is given in the Nyayapravesa of
Dignaga.
Having thus explained the whole position, the author
concluded ‘ in the manner expounded above, understand
clearly the fallacious character of the inference that is
produced by the fallacious character of the reasoning.
Thus ‘distinguishing truth and falsehood by the method
taught above, understand ^without doubt and on due
consideration what is truth.' This seems on the face of
it, merely to be an exhortation to the pupil to understand
the truth, and thus must be held to invalidate the infer-
ence that, since the exposition has taken the form of
syllogistic argument, it is intended to carry conviction
to others rather than to convince oneself. The fact of
an argument being thrown into a syllogistic form need
not necessarily involve the obligation that the argument
is intended to convince others. It may be thrown into
that syllogistic form for convincing oneself, irrespective
of any consideration to argue and convince others. The
discussion of syllogism and syllogistic form notwith-
standing, the explicit statement of the author seems to
imply that he was primarily concerned that each indivi-
dual must so examine the arguments to convince him-
selt. As such, the chapter seems to involve no more
than the Svartha form of inference of Dign^a, and
has_ nothing whatever to do with the Parartha form
inference that Dignaga for some reason had to
consider and conclude that it is already involved in the
Taking a complete view of the chapter in comparison
with such knowledge as we have of the works of
Dignaga on logic, it seems clearly arguable that the
uddhist saint Arvana Adigal who taught in the Tamil
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
79
country and in Kanchl in the latter days of his life,
taught the logic that ultimately found its most illustrious
exponent in Dignaga. It may be possible to argue that
Aravana Adigal in chapter xxix of the Manimekhalai is
merely expounding the logic taught by Dignaga and
therefore followed him in point of time. If we had no
valid reason against this, the chapter is certainly open
to that inference, although, as I have pointed out above,
there are points in it which would seem clearly a
transition from the school of Akshapada (and Vatsya-
yana) to that of Dignaga, and apart from the valid
evidence going against this inference, there is enough
in the system of logic expounded in chapter xxix to
justify the inference that Dignaga belonged to this
school, and ultimately codified the teaching in the form
in which he has given it out to the world.
It must be remembered that Dignaga was a native of
KanchT. Even if he was not born there he lived there
for a considerable length of time in the early stages of
his life. He went afterwards to northern India to learn
from Vasubandhu who was long resident in Ayodhya.
Dignaga is actually said to have gone there in the
Tibetan sources of his life, but we are not told what
exactly he learnt from Vasubandhu. It is not likely
that he went to Vasubandhu to learn logic. From
Vasubandhu he learnt perhaps the Yogachara Philosophy
of Buddhism to which there is no reference in chapter
XXX of Manimekhalai. He went from Vasubandhu to
Nalanda, and therefrom he proceeded on a controversial
tour and ultimately went to Kanchi to settle down as a
teacher there though according to one account he died
in Orissa. "C^asubandhu’s time must now be taken to be
contemporary with the reign of Samudragupta and
Chandragupta, his son, and Dignaga could .not be far
%
80
MA]5TIMEKHALAI
reiBOved from him. A.D. 400 would be the ultimate
downward limit for him, and the school of logic in
Kanchl representing the teachings of Arvana Adigal in
the poem must have had anterior existence. ' Other
considerations of a historical character, and even the
cultural details contained in the Brahmanical sections of
the book, seem to indicate a period considerably ante-
rior te Dignaga as the period of the work. Hence the
conclusion seems borne in upon us that the Manime-
khalai represents a school Cf logic from which Dignaga
sprang, not a school of logic which expounded
Dignaga’ s teaching.
Book XXX of the Manimekhalai takes the form
of the teaching of the essentials of Buddhism such
as it was understood to be by the author Sattan,
or such as was prevalent in the Tamil country at
the time. It begins with laying down, as a necessary
preparation for it, that one should be prepared to
make gifts Deely to worthy people and adopt a
conduct of righteousness in life, thus exhibiting in
practice the two qualities of Dhana and Sila, the first
two of the ten Buddhist perfections (Paramitas). Then
the noviciate should put himself unreservedly under the
direction of the three jewels by a frank declaration of
such resignation into dependence upon the three jewels
Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Thus Aravana Adigaj
began his teaching with how the Buddha 'came into the
world and how he attained to enlightenment, and begins
to_expohnd the discovery that he made of the ‘ Four
Truths,’ suffering, origin of suffering, cessation of
suffering, and the way to bring about cessation of
suffering, a truth which according to this ‘teacher had
been taught by a succession of venerable Buddhas before.
Ihe realization of these^ ‘ Four Truths ’ could only be
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
81
achieved by overcoming the chain of causes and condi-
tions incorporated in the twelve nidanas. These twelve
are so related to each other as cause and effect that the
cessation of the one necessarily brings about the cessation
of the 'following. We are told that these may be
regarded in the relation of subjects and of attributes as
the attributes could not exist if the subjects themselves
cease to exist. These nidanas are then expounded fully,
and each one of these is actually explained in the way
both the Northern and the Southern schools of Buddhism
actually do. The exposition seems actually to follow
closely that of the Sarvastivadins and the Sautrantikas.
Ignorance is explained as the chief cause of it all. It
consists in a want of capacity in oneself to perceive truth,
and in the capacity for deluding oneself in believing that
which could not be perceived, on the authority of others.
The ultimate result of this leads to a cycle of births in
the six different worlds of beings, of which the first three
are respectively, Deva, Brahma, and the human ; the
next three, animal life, the spirit world and the nether
world itself. Good deeds take one to birth in the first
three, and evil deeds to that in the following three.
Removal of ignorance therefore would remove all else as
of consequence. These twelve nidanas are divided into
four sections with three joints as in the Sarvastivadin
Karma phenomenology. These again are divided into
past, present and future. ‘ Desire, attachment and
ignorance, these and the birth resulting therefrom,
constitute action in the present and cause future birth.
Consciousness, name and form, organs of sense, contact,
sensation, birth, age, disease and death, these are conse-
quential experiences in life, both present and future.
These are full of evil, of deeds, and of consequences
resulting from these deeds, and,thus constitute suffering.’
11 •
82
MA^JIMEKHALAI
As such these are regarded as impermanent, coming thus
to the first cardinal statement of Buddha’s teaching,
Everything is ^ impermanent ‘ sarvmn anityam \
Results from this suffering are said to be becoming
when one understands that there is nothing like a soul in
anything existing. ^ This brings us to the second cardinal
principle of Buddhism, < Everything is without a soul ’
' sarvam anatmakam ‘ Consciousnes, name and form'
the organs of sense, contact, sensation, birth, disease’
age and death, with the re'lulting anxiety and helpless-
ness, these constitute disease and suffering. The causes
of these are ignorance, action, desire, attachment and
the collection of deeds.’ It is this attachment that
brings about suffering and death. If this attachment
should be given up, it brings about cessation of birth
and bhss ‘ Nirvanam alone is blissful peace’, Nirvnna-
mevasantam . Thus are expounded the ‘ Four Truths ’.
One statement in the course of this deserves closer
that in anything existent,
there IS nothing like a soul. It is as a general state-
ment the same as ^ sarvam anatmakam', but somewhat
narrower in its application as it is actually stated
m this context as well as in a passage following
near the end of the chapter.^ Here the statement
amtmakam seems to imply the negation of in-
ividual souls in things existing, and not in its further
development of a common soul which is believed to be
a refanement mtroduced by Harivarma (a.d. dr I)
stSddbfsroi:' the founder
, “f theological method
and then an exposition of the five s^;c^ka,. The
^ ’ Ih 177-254,
ITS PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
83
skandhas and their manifestations, it is taught, are
caused by desire, anger and illusion, and could be got
rid of by getting rid of these three. Each one of these
is to be examined separately, its real nature under-
stood and adhesion to it got rid of. An examination
would thus show that everything is impermanent, full of
suffering, without a soul and unclean. By so under-
standing it, desire must be given up. The best attitude
of mind is attained in the ^alization of friendliness to
all living beings, kindliness to creatures, and joy at the
well-being of all, and these must therefore be cultivated.
Illusion is got rid of by hearing ‘ Sruti ' ; by mentation,
Cketaiza] experiencing in mind — Bhavana', realizing in
vision — Dar'smia. By practising these steadily one can
get rid of darkness of mind. Manimekhalai is then said
to have agreed to doing so and set up as an ascetic
iapasi, which put her on the highroad to NirvUna.
In this chapter, Aravana Adigal follows the main
lines of karma phenomenology as taught in the school of
the Sarvastivadins and what South Indian Tamil i a ns
describe as the teaching of the school of the Sautran-
tikas. There is no hint of any element of the teaching
of the school of the Vignanavadin in it of which
Dignaga was a shining exponent and even other teachers
from Kanchi down to the days of Dharmapala wire
distinctly exponents of that school. As was pointed out
already, there is nothing that could be regarded as a
reference to the Sunyavada and the Madhyamika
school ; nor even of the characteristic teachings of the
Satyasiddhi school, a transition as it were between the
Hinayana and the Mahayana in the doctrine of anEtma
that is actually referred to here. This again seems to
give us a clear indication that the time of Aravana
Adigal, or the author Sattan, cduld not be re^ferred to a
84
MA5JIMEKHALAI
time when the most distinguished teacher in Kanchi
was a shining light of the Vignanavada school. It must,
however, be noted here that, according to Hiuen-Tsang,
the prevalant form of Buddhism in Kanchi was the
Sthaviravada.
There is yet another school associated intimately with
Kanchi to which reference may be made here. The
Chinese know of a school of Buddhism called the Dhyana
School which seems to have had a continuous existence
in China since the days of its introduction in the sixth
century to the present time. This is called in Japanese
Yen-shu. This was introduced into China by an Indian
priest called Bodhidharma. ‘ He was the third son of
a king of Kanchi in South India. He came to China in
A.D. 527.’ ‘ This school does not cling for support to
any particular portion of the Trpitaka, but rather takes
up whatever is excellent in the various portions of the
sacred canon, not without subjecting it to a critical
examination. The Dhyana school moreover believes
that the human tongue is too weak to give expression to
the highest truths. As a natural consequence of such a
belief, its adherents disclaim attachment to Sacred
Books as their final authority. But nevertheless they
respect the canon regarding it as an efficient instrument
conducing to the attainment of enlightenment.’ There
is no indication of anything like this teaching in the
Buddhism of Mapimekhalai. If Bodhidharma went to
China in A.D. 527, his teaching must have been fairly
wSl known about A.D. 500. Perhaps this may give a
slight indication that the teaching of Aravapa Adigal
rnusthave been earlier than A.D. 500.
It may be stated in conclusion that the teaching of
Buddhism as embodied in Book xxx is enforced by
Sattanat least in three dther planes in the course of the
OTHER VIEWS
85
work. He puts it once in the mouth of Aravana Adigal
himself in Book xxiv where he taught it to the queen ;
he puts it into the mouth of the spirit of ‘ the statue in
the pillar ’ in Book xxi, and he puts it again into the
mouth of the image of Kannaki addressing Mapimekhalai
as on the previous occasion. In all this it is the same
teaching that is given detail for detail. That the teaching
followed was that of the Sautrantika is in clear evidence
where Kannaki is made to tell Manimekhalai, ‘ having
learnt in this old city the” wise teaching of those that
profess the various religions, and after feeling convinced
that they do not expound the path of truth, you will then
accept “ the path of the Pitakas of the Great One ”, and
follow it without transgression.’ This makes it as clear
as it is possible to expect in the circumstances, that the
teaching of Buddhism embodied in the Manimekhalai is
the Sautrantika form of Buddhism, and by no means the
Vighanavada with which the names of Dignaga and the
succession of his pupils down to Dharmapala are
intimately associated.
V
EXAMINATION OF OTHER VIEWS ON THE
PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS OF
MANIMEKHALAI
The foregoing account of Books xxvii, xxix and xxx
of the Manimekhalai follows faithfully the text of the
work, but the exposition of it is entirely my own. » It
would have become obvious to the reader who has
perused the, whole of it with any care, that perhaps other
views than those expounded above can possibly be urged
and other conclusions drawn with very considerable
justification. It may be as weU that those oiher lines are
MASriMEKHALAI
considered and my reasons for taking the line that I have
taken indicated as a necessary supplement to my exposi-
tion of the subject. In regard to this part of the subject,
I have had the great advantage of discussion with a
scholar of the eminence of Professor Jacobi of Bonn who
did me the kindness to look through the manuscript
portion relating to the translation of these books and the
whole of my exposition thereof. As his criticism is quite
typical of the views possible, I set them forth, as far as
may be, in his own words, ^ith a running commentary
of my own as perhaps the best way of explaining the
position.
The first point to call for attention relates to the
remarks^ of the learned Professor regarding Krtahoti.
Krtakoti, it will be remembered, is a name which occurs
m^the Manimekhalai along with those of Vedavyasa and
Jaimini among those who were regarded as authoritative
expounders of Vaidika Pramanas (instruments of know-
ledge resting upon the Veda for their authority). Profes-
sor Jacobi writes in his letter dated the 28th April 1927
explanation of Krtakoti as the name ot the first
commentary on the Mimarhsa Sutras is of great importance.
The vexed question about Bodhayana and Upavarsha is
brought nearer its solution by your discovery. In connec-
tion with it I may be allowed to make the following remarks ;
(1) The Vrttikara cannot be equated with Krtakoti
if the report of the Manimekhalai may be trusted. For Krta-
koti taught eight pramavos, and the Vrttikara but six • see
quotation from him ad. I, 1, 5 (p. 10, Bibli.
, n-!! “ connection with the i>rams.nas cannot
be Badarayana, since no school of the Vedantins is known to
have admitted ten pramsms, but some acknowledged three
some six. (In the Sutras of either Mlmaihsa occur only the
hree original t>ran.a^, as acknowledged by Sankhya In
the Vedanta Sutras mfihapatti does not occur, ■ in the
OTHER VIEWS
87
Mimamsa Sutra ; it does occur twice or thrice but the word
there denotes something quite different, in no way connected
with the prsmarui artkspaiit). Perhaps Vedavyasa should
be taken to be the author of the Puranas, though the Paura-
nikas acknowledge eight pra?nSnas according to the usual
tradition.’
We shall consider the points in this extract seriatim.
Krtakoti is the name of a person according to the
Manimekhalai. But what is said of Krtakoti in the
Prapanchahr daya passage quoted in extenso shows Krtakoti
to be the name of the commentary from which the author
must have been subsequently named Krtakdti. The very
formation of the word seems to indicate it as a personal
title, though, according to our authority, it is unmistaka-
bly the name of the work. The Prapanchahrdaya passage
quoted makes it clear beyond all possibility of doubt
that Krtakoti is the author of the commentary as a whole,
and Upavarsha was the expounder of that commentary
who, for convenience of teaching and reading, felt it
necessary to make an abridged edition of it. That is the
position according to this Sanskrit work. But the point
to which the professor takes exception is whether Krtakoti
can be identified with the Vrttikara as I have taken it in
my exposition. The commentators quote largely a
commentary as the work of a Vrttikara. They do not^ in
the great majority of cases, give any other name than that
of Vrttikara. But the Prapanchahrdaya clearly states
that it was Bodhayana that wrote the commentary
Krtakoti, and that Upavarsha’s work was no more th ^ n
an abridgement. So where it is quoted as distinct from
Upavarsha, sometimes in juxtaposition, the possibility
seems to be that Bodhayana is quoted under the name
Vrttikara as the Sri Bhashya of Ramanuja refers to
Bodhayana Vrtti as an authoritative work ‘following the
MAiJIMEKHALAI
88
text of which closely he writes his own commentary on the
Brahma Sutras ’ or Uttara Mimamsa. The Prapanchahr-
daya makes the statement clear that Bodhayana wrote the
commentary on the whole of the Mimamsa, Purva and
Uttara, and Upavarsha’s abridgment similarly takes
into it both the sections of the Mimarhsa. But Professor
Jacobi’s point of objection is that the Vrttikara formulat-
ed €1^^. pramaims according to the Manimekhalai. If
Krtakoti should be taken to be the Vrttikara, the eight
are nowhere mentioned in Vedanta works as
formulated by him. He takes the six pramUims clearly
stated in the^ commentary on Sutra I. i. 5 of the Purva
Mimarhsa in Sahara s commentary to be a quotation from
the Vrttikara. My point against this is that the position
seems to be supported indirectly by what Professor Keith
has to say of the quotation from the Vrttikara in this
commentary, that the six are the pramanas accepted by
the cornmentator as the pramanas of the Sutrakara, that
is Jaimini. As against this, the Professor points out in
a later letter dated the 12th July, 1927.
‘ You say that the six pram.aij.as, mentioned first in the
extract from the old Vrttikara, were those formulated by
Jaimim, the Sutrakara himself. But by the evidence of the
Sutras their author knew only the first three pramanas and
»no more.’
I must admit I had overlooked this point. But then
the point admits of an explanation. In that particular
chapter^ Jaimini is apparently considering the pramanas
gaierally admitted as such by other Sastrakaras, it may
be the Naiyayikas and others, and of these, for the
purposes of the Mimamsa Sastra, the first part of it in
particular, he rejects^ the first three as of no* validity and
^cepts the fourth, Sabda alone, as of valid authority.
That po&5teon of the Sikrakara does not appear to me to
OTHER VIEWS
89
be necessarily inconsistent with Jaimini’s regarding six
as valid pramE^ms generally from the point of view of
the systems of the followers of the Veda as a whole.
This is confirmed by the Prapanchahrdaya which treats
these six as laukika (secular). With such a clear state-
ment as is found in the Manimekhalai any other explana-
tion would make the author absurd, and I believe it would
be carrying criticism too far to ascribe to an author an
absurdity of this gross kind.
In regard to Vedavyasa nimself, the Professor’s point
is that no Vedanta work has accepted ten as
such. But that is not incompatible with Vedavyasa
having formulated ten pramattas.
In the section under consideration, the Manimekhalai
deals with the Vaidika/)?'«w^»«^ as such, not those of the
Miraamsa Sastra alone. Among those who dealt with
the subject of pramanas generally the work mentions
three, Vedavyasa formulating ten pramU'tms as valid,
Krtakoti eight and Jaimini six. The formulating of
these as generally acceptable, is not incompatible with
the position that where particular sciences or Sastras are
taken into consideration, these get reduced, for the
purposes of the particular Sastra, to a smaller number.
That seems the only satisfactory way of accounting for
the varying numbers of the pramajias that we find in^'the
different Sastras. But in regard to Vyasa himself, the
Professor is of opinion that probably he was not Vyasa
Badarayana, the author of the Brahma Sutras. , Indian
tradition seems to be uniform in regarding Vedavyasa'^as
actually the author of the Brahma Sutras. No treatise
of his on pramanas has come down to us, but Veda-
vyasa is regarded as a teacher, and it is just possible to
believe he taught, as a necessary preliminary V aidika
pramE^s z?, s,ViCh., and in the “course of that teaching
12
90
MAIjriMEKHALAI
I
formulated ten pramaims. This position seems to find
confirmation in^the passage quoted from the commentary
Kasika on the Slokavarttika where the names of Krtakoti
and Vedavyasa are brought into connection. Vedavyasa
is there indicated by the name Parasarya, son of Para-
sara, and Krtakoti is there referred to as one that followed
him in point of time and as one that followed him in
point of teaching as well, so that Krtakoti was one that
followed the teaching of Parasarya Vyasa coming later
m point of time. It seems therefore understandable that,
on the general question of the pramajms, Parasarya
Vyasa the teacher held ten such as acceptable, while the
comparatively late disciple elected to accept only eight
of his^ teacher’s, just as Jaimini, traditionally the pupil
of Vyasa, is said similarly to have accepted only six.
The whole position is merely one of classification.'
Vyhile it is possible for one to regard some of these as
distinct enough for separate treatment, others may
legitimately hold that they are easily capable of inclusion
in some of those already considered.
It seems likely there is manuscript warrant for
the confusion in the printed texts of the commentary
of Sahara on the Purva Mimarnsa. The Panini trans-
lator^in his comment on Sutra I, i, 5 of the Purva
Mimarnsa translates only six prammms as those of the
commentator. In his analysis of the first pada of
the work that he prefixes to the translation, he recounts
eight pramanas without indicating where exactly he
obtained the information from.^ Is it not possible
then that this list^ of eight is the eight of the Vrttikara
as quoted by Sahara, and therefore the eight of
^ A letter of mine asking for the source of
eight Pramanas, fetched the reply, to my
translator died on 10th June, 192 F,
this information regarding the
great regret, that the learned
OTHER VIEWS
91
Krtakoti as we find it stated in the Manimekhalai ?
That there is some little confusion would become clear
from the following extracts from Professor Keith’s
Karma Mimosa. On page 8, he has ; — ‘ The extract
from the Vrttikara proves that an important addition has
been made to the teaching of the Mimarhsa in the shape
of the introduction of the discussion of the validity of
knowledge and its diverse forms.’ Further down he has
‘it is not illegitimate to assume that the Vrttikara
indulged also in metaphysical discussions If the Vrtti-
kara held eight pramanas as valid and is quoted as such
in commentaries, and if the Manimekhalai said Bodha-
yana Krtakoti formulated eight pyamanas as such, is
there not justification for regarding the two as the same
person? The point that the Sutras actually discuss only
four pramUtuts does not materially affect the question as
these pramEnas are pramatias of validity for the purpose
of Mimarhsa Sastra particularly, while the eight may be
held as generally acceptable. The four considered in the
Sutras may be the four generally taken to be those
accepted by the Naiyayikas. That Vedantins discuss
only the three pramEnas of the Sankya would mean no
more than that the preoccupation of the Vedanta writers
is to consider or controvert the Sankya, at any rate, to
consider it as perhaps the most influential system obtain-
ing at the time. Coming to the point that the Vedavyasa
referred to in the Manimekhalai may be the Pauranika
Vyasa, I do not know if there is sufficient jusjtification
for distinguishing so many Vyasas. But it is ^ust
possible that the PaurEnikamata follows the teaching of
Krtakdti, \yho, after all, is described as a follower of
Vyasa in point of conviction. In the work Sarva
Siddhanta Sangraha ascribed to Sankaracharya there is
a Vyasa Siddhanta discussed, but it seems to be a
92
MANIMEKHALAI
Siddhanta incorporating the teaching of the Mahabharata
as such. This work, Sarva Siddhanta Sangraha may be
the work of the great Sankara or no. But it apparently
was a work considered of some importance and standing
as the Vaishnava Acharya Pillai Lokacharya seems to
have considered it as a work of some authority. In any
case, there seems to be no room for a decisive negation
to the statement in the Manimekhalai that Vyasa in
his treatment of the Vaidika pramUnas accepted ten
prammias as of general valic^ty.
While, therefore, we may not be in a position to
support by a decisive authority categorically stated of the
position indicated in the Manimekhalai, there seems to
be quite enough of circumstantial evidence to support
the general position of the Manimekhalai that Vaidika
pramanas as such received treatment at the hands of
three mharyas of high rank, Vyasa, Krtakdti, and
Jaimini, the prrnnmtas upheld by the three being
respectively, ten, eight and six. It further turns out
that Krtakoti was a follower of Vyasa in point of
teaching, which may mean that he was a teacher of the
system formulated by Vyasa, and this invloves his
exposition of Vyasa’s teaching, which took the form of a
commentary, such as the Prapanchahrdaya actually
indicates it to be, the work Krtakoti' of an author
Bodhayana. Where Ramanuja speaks of his following
the text of Bodhayana’ s vrtti in his Sri Bhashya, the
ground for identifying Bodhayana with Krtakoti does
no? seem to be quite without support.
The next point of the professor’s criticism is the
rektive position of Dignaga and the author pf the Mani-
mekhalai, as their teaching of Buddhistic logic is almost
identical in point of form. Since the good professor has
given me fulf permission to extract from his letters, I shall
OTHER VIEWS
93
take the liberty of expounding his position by quoting
his own words : —
‘ I now understand what yon meant by saying that in the
Manimekhalai the logical teaching of Dignaga is anticipated.
According to your opinion, there was in South India a school
of Logicians headed by Aravana Adigal where Dignaga
learned the system of Logic which later in North hidia he
proclaimed as his own. This is a bold assumption which
would require very strong arguments to pass as admissible.
A prima facie objection, c^f which you seem not to be un-
conscious, is the following : — The Manimekhaiai is a romance
the scheme of which is laid in the remote past. The events
narrated in it are a fiction of the poet (or his predecessors),
and so are the persons figuring in it. Why should Aravaria
Adigal be an exception ? Is he, or his school, well attested
by Tamil tradition in the Sangam Literature ? In many
Jaina romances there is introduced some Yati who gives an
exposition of the law, converts the hero, etc., etc., but no-
body has taken these teachers for historical persons. They
serve the purpose of the poet to give a sketch of the Jain
doctrines, or as the case may be to refute heterodox ones.
Similarly Sattan introduced Aravana Adigal as the exponent
of what he himself considered to be the essence of Buddhism.
As he is no Sastrin, no professor of Philosophy, but a poet
and grain merchant, he naturally had to gather information
from different sources. This accounts for the occasional
inconsistencies in his ^ report,' e.g. ‘ when first five Avayavas
are taught (in accordance with Aksapada and Vasubagdhu)
and afterwards the two last Avayavas are included in dritunta
so that only three remain (as taught by Dignaga) ; or when
ill chapter xxvii the Bauddha system is reckoned among
the six systems which are based on the six prammias^ and in
chapter xxix Buddha is said to have admitted hnt^two
pramdnas, ’
In the Pfissage the first point that emerges is the
character of the work Manimekhaiai. Manimekhaiai is un-
doubtedly a romantic poem. But I have taken pains to
show that it is a romance based«on historical*occurrences.
94
MAl^IMEKHALAI
It at least seems to have been the traditional opinion of
the commentators that, while the treatment of the subject
in the work is of the character of a romance, the incidents
narrated in it are of the character of historical incidejits.
This is, to some extent, supported by the fact that the
author, who is described undoubtedly as the grain
merchant of Madura, was a contemporary of the Chera
king, ‘ Senguttuvan’, in whose court he was a much
respected figure. He was ^the particular friend of the
Chera king’s younger brother, Ilango, the author of
Silappadhikaram, who more than once, in the body of the
work, refers to Sattan as a friend of his brother, the
>■
monarch. Senguttuvan is a character whose deeds are
found described in works, whose character as Sangam
works is beyond cavil. The achievements of this monarch
are described in identical terms almost, in these two
romantic works as well as in a more or less definitely
historical poem, the Padirruppattu, by Paranar, a Sangam
classic by common consent. Whatever opinion we may
form of the works themselves, their character must be
governed by this consideration that Sattan and Sengut-
tuvan were contemporaries.
The next point is, whether Aravaria Adigal, the author,
gives an exposition of Buddhism and Buddhistic logic
in this work exactly in the style of the Jain authors
referred to, the Jain celebrities described in the work
Prabhavakacharita. The Professor is undoubtedly right
in saying that Sattan was first and foremost a poet
an3 not perhaps a philosopher or Sastrin. But if the
tradition of the Tamil Land could be believed much
true philosophic influence has been inspired«to professed
teachers and founders of systems from sources far less
reputable than that of the grain merchant Sattan. I have
nowhere stated that ther€ was a particular school of logi-
OTHER VIEWS
9S
cians, or that Aravaiia Adigal was the head of a particular
school. All that I meant was there must have been
teachers of logic teaching at various centres in the Tamil
country. Aravana Adigal was typical of those teachers
and as was usual with these teachers he spent a wander-
ing life here, there, and everywhere, at any rate, in the
Tamil country. In the last stage of his life, he was
teaching in KanchT, as he did in a previous stage at
Kaveripattinam. He may have anticipated the teaching
of Dignaga in the enunciation of two fram'atms^ namely
that the pramanas definitely applicable to the teachings
of Buddhism are only two, and that the Avayavas (mem-
bers of a syllogism) need be only three. My position
that Aravana Adigal anticipates Dignaga is taken on
these two points that at the end of the discussion of
Vaidika pra}-nanas in Book xxvii, he definitely states that
six are the current pramanas applicable to the six re-
cognized systems of the time, and according to him one
of the six recognized systems was Buddhism. At the
commencement of Book xxix where he treats of Buddhist
logic, he treats of the Pramanas, Pratyaksha and
Anumana, and winds up with the statement that the
other pramunas are capable of inclusion in the second,
i.e., Anumana. In the Nyayapravesa and the Pramana-
salnuucchaya of Dignaga, Dignaga solemnly discusses* the
four pramaims of the logicians rejecting the last two and
accepting the first two. To me it appears that Aravana
Adigal’ s position marks a transition to what uMmately
became Dignaga’ s teaching. If a man of the reputatfon
of Aravana Adigal as a teacher taught the system in
Kanchi, one may take it that serious students at Kanchi
had some knowledge of it, and when one of them of the
genius of Dignaga systematized the teaching of
Buddhist logic, he might hav» improved tipon it by
96
MA5IIMEKHALAI
making a deliberate investigation of the whole position in-
cluding that of the most authoritative school of the time,
that of the Naiyayikas, and laid it down that two are the
pramUnas and not four, while Aravana Adigal merely says
that there are other pramanas, but they need not be con-
sidered separately, as all of them could be included in
the second, the all of them here being apparently, the
remaining four out of the six. It does not affect our
position even if Aravana Adigal were a mere creation of
the poet, as it would then be that Sattan incorporates in
the Manimekhalai what was the prevalent notion among
Buddhists at Kanchi, or what is perhaps better, in the
Tamil country. In regard to the avayavas the same
transition is indicated almost in the same manner, that
is, he discusses the three and leaves the other two as
capable of inclusion in the third. That is the reason
why I regard it as a transition from the current beliefs
of anterior times to the teachings of Dignaga.
The professor follows up his criticism with further
remarking,
‘ Though it will probably ever be impossible to ascertain
all sources from which Sattan drew his information which he
embodied in theoretical chapters of the Mapimekhalai,
but still it can be done in one case beyond the possibility
of doubt. Indeed on a comparison of the exposition of
the fallacies of the Manimekhalai with the corresponding
part in the Nyayapravesa it will be seen that the number
and order of the fallacies, and as you yourself state, “ their
defirytions and illustrations alike are almost identical ”.
Now the material agreement of two texts amounting
practically to identity cannot be set down as a mere chance ;
it is impossible to expound it in any other way than by
assuming that one text is immediately or Tnediately an
abstract of the other ; in the case under consideration, it is
evident that the author of the Manimekhalai, in this part at
least, has borrowed ffom the Nyayapravesa of Sankara-
OTHER VIEWS
97
svamin, nor can it be assumed that both Sattan and Sankara
borrowed from a common source, ^'or we know that
Sankara’s source was Dignaga’s Nyayadvara of which a
Chinese translation has been preserved; but he gave a
masterly exposition of his teacher’s logical system improv-
ing however on one point by adding four more to Dignaga’s
five Paksha-abhdsas, As the same four additional dbhdsas
are adopted in Rattan’s abstract, it is clear that the latter
ha§ copied from the Nyayapravesa. In this regard the
verdict of all unprejudiced scholars will he unanimous.
Therefore the posteriority of Sattan to Sankaras vamin and^
fo7'iiori to Dignaga must be regarded as established. The
upper limit of the position of the Manimekhalai may be
taken to be a.d. 500,’
In this part the professor takes up the position of
Sattan’s being later than Dignaga on the basis of what
is contained in Book xxix of the Manimekhalai. His
position would be less open to objection, and mine per-
haps less capable of justification, but for the fact that
the position taken by him is not altogether without its
0 wn weak points. We agree in respect of the teaching
of Buddhist logic in Book xxix of the Manimekhalai
and that of the Nyayapravesa and Pramanasamuchchaya
being almost identical. Our difference is only which
is first and which is next. There are two points in the
professor’s criticism which challenge consideration. The
first is that the Nyayapravesa is ascribed to Sankara-
svamin, the immediate disciple of Dignaga himself.
There is the further point that the Nyayapmvesa in
regard to Paksha-abhasas improves upon the teaching of
Dignaga by adding four more Paksha-nbhasas thus bring-
ing it into, closer identity with the teaching of the
Manimekhalai. Therefore the position comes to be
that the Manimekhalai copied not the work of Dignaga
himself but that of his disciple.* But the Nyayapravesa
13
98
MAIiIIMEKHALAI
is regarded by others, on equally valid evidence of which
the principal features have already explained by me above,
as the work of Dignaga himself and not of Sankara-
svamin. Therefore the addition of four Paksha-abhasas
by Sankarasvamin to the teaching of Dignaga would
have no basis to stand on. The question then would be
the teaching of Dign^a according to Nyayapravesa and
the exposition of the Paksha-abhasas in Book xxix.of the
Manimekhalai. Which is anterior and which is posterior
is the question. The main features of the argument
upon which the particular pramUna is ascribed to
Dignaga have been indicated above in summary, and
the references given to where further information
could be had. I requested the good offices of the
learned professor to contribute the appended note on the
other side of the question of Sankarasvamin’ s authorship
of Nyayapravesa as some of the sources are not acces-
sible to me. In this context the professor’s position
that the Nyayapravesa is based on Nyayadvara of
Dignaga is seriously called in question. Both the
Nyayadvara and the Nyayapravesa are ascribed to Digna-
ga, and are regarded as separate works altogether.
Therefore the position is not quite so clear, and opinion
is not so unanimous as to the authorship of these
works. To me it appears that it is a matter of no
importance comparatively whether the Nyayapravesa is
Dignaga’s or Sankarasvamin’s as Sankarasvamin is
accepted as the immediate disciple of Dignaga. I agree
with the learned professor that the two works are so
close to each other as to be almost identical that the
one must have taken it from the other. But the real point
of difference is whether it is impossible that Aravana
Adigal could have taught the subject without formulat-
ing it as in a text-book ’'as Dignaga had done it later.
OTHER VIEWS
99
Aravana Adigal was a mere teacher, and not a codifier
and controversialist like Dignaga, whose main purpose
was to defend Buddhist logic as against those that may-
be interested in assailing it. It is unnecessary for this
position that Dignaga should necessarily have learned it
from Aravana Adigal or somebody else in Kanchi, or
that he should take himself away to Northern India to
misap^Dropriate the teaching, as it were, and publish it
as his own. From all that^ we know of teachers that
taught in those times they had freedom to make the
alterations implied in this process to be able to do it in
their own particular localities. The only characteristic
feature that ought to be paid attention to in the case of
Dignaga is that he went about controverting, and had
therefore to give his teaching a definition which a
teacher like Aravana Adigal did not perhaps quite feel
called upon to do from the necessities of controversy. We
cannot in our present state of knowledge be so definite
about the position of Akshapada and Vasubandhu that
these teachers originated the teachirig in regard to the
five avayavas, or in regard to anything else. It would
be very difficult to ascribe the originating of any
very particular item of teaching in these departments
to particular authors except to the extent of their
having committed these items of teaching to writing in
works that have become accessible to us. As a rule it
may be taken that these teachings were for a consider-
able length of time in the floating traditions of ihe
schools before they got entry into written texts, and
when they actually reached this state they had necessarily
to take a m»re definite form. Therefore it is quite un-
necessary to ascribe any moral turpitude to Dignaga in
doing what he actually did, giving to the teaching of the
schools before him, of which Aravana Adigal is a mere
100 MA1!TIMEKHALAI
representative, the current definition in this formulation
of the framEjtas and the avayavas. On the basis of the
reasons given by the learned professor, the date A.D. 500
may seem quite reasonable. But Vasubandhu’s date
is nowadays taken to be somewhat earlier, and
cannot go as far as A.D. 400. It is now taken as
proved that Vasubandhu was a contemporary „ of
Samudragupta, and Dignaga therefore could not have
been very much later. He might have been somewhat
younger than Vasubandhu but could not have been so
late as to be capable of being brought to A.D. 400.
That from our point of view seems a minor one.
While we are discussing this point, I may as well
note here a remark of my friend, Mr. R. Narasimha-
charyar, till lately Director of Archmological Researches
in Mysore. He is as well convinced as Professor Jacobi ^
himself as to the Manimekhalai expounding the Nyaya-
pravesa of Dignaga. But he put it to me that, having
regard to what Book xxix of the Manimekhalai
expounds as Buddhist logic, it would not be unreasonable
to argue that Dignaga was an earlier teacher and there-
fore earlier than the date of the Manimekhalai, that is,
the second century A.D. In other words, he would take
the date of Manimekhalai to be the second century A.D.
and would place Dignaga earlier than that date. This j
position of my friend goes to indicate that perhaps the
more legitimate historical argument would be to fix the
dat^ of the Manimekhalai and shift that of Dignaga, for
after all, Manimekhalai’s dating is to be primarily on the
historical considerations indicated above rather than on
the philosophical systems such as they are in the work.
I may, however, note that there are difficulties in the ^
way of accepting that position. Dignaga’ s contempora-
neity with Vasubandhu' would be difficult to call in
OTHER VIEWS
101
question unless we are prepared to throw to the four
winds all the available evidence of literary tradition
completel}'. Vasubandhu cannot be taken to an anterior
date such as this would imply without doing very great
violence to accredited Buddhist tradition and Chinese
evidence of a definite character. The more reasonable
position to take therefore seems to be that which is taken
in the course of the exposition of the work above.
The professor’s further point of criticism is in regard
to the omission of all references to Mahayana. Here is
the professor’s position : —
‘ Sattan in his exposition of Buddhism nowhere, as you
say, refers to Mahayanistic ideas. It may, therefore, be
assumed that in his time the Mahayana was not yet in exist-
ence, and accordingly Sattan must be earlier than
Nagarjuna ; but this conclusion can easily be shown to be
wrong. For Sattan refers to Akshapada and Nyaya, and as
in the Nyayasutra, the Sunyavada is discussed and refuted,
there can be no doubt that in Sattan’s time, the Mahayana
was already established long since.’
In this point again, I am sorry that the professor’s
argument overshoots the mark. There is no reference
to Mahayana in the exposition of Buddhism in the Mani-
mekhalai, and the conclusion cannot be that Sattan did
not know the Mahayana either to accept it as an orthodox
system, or to condemn it as a heretical system. That may
be due to Sattan being anterior to Nagarjuna and there-
fore of Sunyavada, or of his not knowing it, the teaching
hot having had sufficient time to have become well
known, and reach the Tamil country. The latter is the
view that I* have taken, and not exactly the former,
guided here again by the governing historical considera-
tions. The learned professor, on the contrary, bases
himself on the position that the* teaching of Akshapada
102
MA^TIMEKHALAI
and the Nyayasutra are identical in every particular. In
regard to the Sunyavada that is discussed and refuted
there again, there is not that agreement in regard to
what exactly the teachings of Akshapada were and what
additions were made to the Nyayasutras since the time
of Akshapada. This would mean that the discussion of
the Sunyavada must be proved to be in the part ascri-
bable to Akshapada, as in fact it cannot be, if according
to other scholars who have specialized their studies in the
Nyaya, Akshapada was far anterior to Nagarjuna himself.
All I wish to point out is that an argument such as this
cannot be held to be decisive in our present state of
knowledge of the chronology of these works. The
Mahayana is not a product of N^arjuna’s teaching.
The teaching of Mahayana can be traced back to the
days of Asoka, if not earlier. But the actual Sunyavada
in the form in which it has come down to us is still
generally regarded as the teaching of Nagarjuna. The
possibilities are that Sattan’s teaching embodies what-
ever was in the opinion of the Tamil country, the
orthodox teaching of Buddhism,^about the same time as
Nagarjuna was expounding the Sunyavada of the Maha-
yanistic school in the Andhra country across, both being
the ^result of the same stir, particularly in the continent
of India, that is indicated in the Mahavaihsa of Ceylon
as the famous Vaitulya controversy. The heretics are
located, according to the Mahavamsa, in the coast
country'set over ^against Anuradhapura extending north-
wards into the Andhra country. Therefore the time at
which Sattan lived seems to me the time which actually
produced Nagarjuna and Deva and possibly a little
anterior. Much as the great Master of the Law, Hiuen-
Tsang, doe,g not make uny reference to Dharmakirti who
lived in his time and perhaps was actually teaching when
OTHER VIEWS
103
the great traveller was in India, Sattan fails to mention
Nagarjuna or his Sunyavada.
The analogy brought in by the learned professor can
hardly be accepted as holding good in this case. His
position is : —
‘ Similarly in the Vedanta Sutra and in the passage from
the Vrttikara quoted by ^abarasvamin ad. 1, 1,5 the Sunyavada
is discussed and refuted. It is true that in the Manimekhalai
there is no explicit reference to the Vedanta philosophy.
However the same remark applies also to the Nyayavarttika,
for Uddyotakara altogether ignores the Vedanta though at
his time it was almost certainly a separate system of philo-
sophy. The same attitude towards Vedantism taken up by
Uddyotakara and Rattan rather speaks in favour of the
assumption that both authors were not far removed in time
from each other.’
Uddyotakara is a commentator pure and simple
on the Nyaya. It is open to him not to mention the
Vedanta as a system, unless he saw particular reason for
doing so, or the actual text that he commented on neces-
sitated a reference. Sattan stands on a different footing.
He lays himself out to discuss what he regarded as here-
tical systems and then to expound the system of Buddhism
that commended itself to him. The difference is vital and
of considerable force. It would be therefore difficult to
believe that Uddyotakara and Sattan were near enough
in point of time because of the omission in the works
of both of them of any reference to Vedanta as a system.
Coming to the exposition of Buddhism in Book xxx
of the Manimekhalai, the professor’s criticism is*as
follows : —
‘ The •translation of chapter xxx of the Manimekhalai
is very welcome, though it is rather disappointing being a
mere meagre account of Buddhism. I wonder who Rattan’s
authority was in this part. It contains only shch teachings
#
104
MAUJIMEKHALAI
as may be acknowledged by all Buddhists, both Hinayanists
and Mahayanists. It has not any reference to the Sarva-
stivada nor the system of the Sautrantikas, for the central
conception of these two schools is the theory of the
dharmas which is not even hinted at in Sattan’s abstract. I
think he merely related what every Sravaka was supposed to
know.’
It may be stated at once that Sattan although he
does not indicate the authority upon which he relies for
the summary of Buddhism in Book xxx refers elsewhere
to what his authority is. The Buddhism that he
teaches is, ‘the path of the Pitakas, of the Great one.’*
He is expounding the fundamental teachings of the
Buddha and not the teachings of schools of Buddhism
which are elaborations and modifications of systems-
builders of later times. It is possible to make the
inference from this alone that Sattan was anterior to the
growth of definite systems that we know of in Buddhism,
particularly the four which are so prominently associated
with the Buddhism of a later age. But that argument
need not be pushed to any extreme. A German scholar
of the twentieth century, laying himself out definitely to
disentangle the teachings of the Buddha from the excres-
cences of subsequent ages and teachers, inculcates in
substance what is the teaching of Sattan, neither more
nor less.^ So Sattan’s teaching may be regarded as
the teaching of ‘ the Pitaka of the Buddha ’, and therefore
indicates a deference to the authority of the ‘ word of the
Buddha"’ such as it was known to be in his time. In that
sense it would be what is called Sthaviravada and may be
regarded as Sautrantika also, not in the technical sense
that the expression acquired, but in a more general sense.
Sattan’s anxie;ty is to teach what the Buddha taught. It
^ Book^xxvi, 1, 66.
® The Doctrine of the Buddha by George Grimm, Leipzig, 1926,
OTHER VIEWS
105
is just possible on this very ground to claim for him ante-
riority, though it is equally possible that a later writer
could lay himself out to disentangle the actual teaching
of the Buddha from its outgrowths. But the claim to
Sattan’s anteriority, according to me, rests not so much
on this feature as on the particular feature that the other
systems as such did not come in for commendation in the
book on Buddhism, and what perhaps is more to be ex-
pected, in condemnation along with the heretical systems.
One explanation is possible that, while he condemns
systems which did not recognize the Buddha, he merely
expounds a system taught by the Buddha, and passed
over outgrowths from that system with a tolerance which
is not unusual in Indian thought.
I have taken it upon myself to make this elaborate
criticism of the views of my much esteemed and learned
friend. Professor Jacobi, because the importance of the
subject and the eminence of the scholarship of the
professor alike demand it from me. The stimulus to this
line of investigation at this time, came from him to
me, and it is but fair to him that I should acknow-
ledge it here, and consider his criticism with the respect
which is due to the eminent source from which
it comes. The elaborate criticism and the extensive
answer that that necessitated, alike go to show that the
line of investigation that was undertaken has shown
clearly, though somewhat disappointingly, that this line
of investigation cannot by any means lay claim to tlj^t
finality which, perhaps in the first instance, was expected
of it both by Professor J acobi and by myself. If I could go
by this investigation alone I should not have any great
difficulty in accepting the position arrived at by the
eminent scholar. But once that position is accepted, it
is incumbent upon me, as a student of history, to test the
14
106
MA]v1IMEKHALAI
position by other lines of enquiry. Without repeating
the details of history, I may merely draw attention here
to two facts which stand out. The first is that the author
IS demonstrably a contemporary of Senguttuvan Chera
and of his younger brother, Ikngo, the author of the
Silappadhikaram. That is one fact of history which it
would be difficult to call in question. The second is that
at the time to which the work refers which is undeubted-
y the time of the author, Kanchi was not under the
allavas, nor under the Tondaman chieftain, Ijam Tira-
yan, but under the princely viceroys of the Chola family
The history of the Pallavas as such certainly goes back
to the age of Samudragupta in the middle of the fourth
century as we take it at present. That is a date not far
removed from that of Dignaga. The Tondaman chief-
tains, particularly Tondaman Ilam Tirayan of Sangam
feme, must have ruled earlier. The Chola ascendency
be referred to an age anterior to this. This position had
been sought to be got round by the Epigraphists by the as-
sumption of a Chola interregnum previous tothe Pallava
king Kumaravishnu II who in one of his records is said
crittolsmlfdetffir"^^^^ Leaving aside for the moment
criticism of details in connection with this particular
statement it may be said at once that the Chola interreg-
num such as is postulated must be an interregnum
ortlme“®Trf' or roundly one ceiury
of J:ime. - The Sangam works give evidence ef ir- u-
being under the rule of the Cholas andlen of fte’
Tondaman Ilam Tirayan, and arranging the authors and
the patrons referred to therein in the ofder ,f “ucSL^n
merely, we get to somewhat like this line of live «ner
tions and alength of time of a century. Therefore nn'
conclusion can be accepted which does" not tSfy this
OTHER VIEWS 107
condition prinaarily ; the age indicated by Professor
Jacobi on the line of reasoning that he has adopted, with
the philosophical systems of the Manimekhalai as a basis,
can hardly satisfy this condition. The alternative
suggestion of Mr. Narasimhacharyar has been briefly
adverted to.
While therefore acknowledging with gratitude the
criticism of the learned professor, I may join in his regret
that we cannot come to an agreement on this investiga-
tion.
APPENDIX
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE NYAYAPRAVBSa
BY
Monsieur Tubianski
In an excellent note in the Bulletin oi the Academy of Sciences,
1926, Russia, Monsieur Tubianshi attacks the problem of the
authorship of the treatise, Nydyapravesa, and gives his vote in
favour of the Nydyapraveia known to the Chinese and regarded
by them as the principal treatise on Buddhist logic being the
work of Sankarasvamin, and not of Dignaga. I am obliged to
Professor Jacobi of Bonn for a copy of the note, and am merely
giving a summary of the arguments in favour of this position as
presenting the other side of the question, the more readily as
Professor Jacobi writes to intimate that he is in full agreement
with Monsieur Tubianski.^ There are four works bearing names
though slightly different but near enough for any one of
them to be confounded with another. Two of these are in
Chinese, two in Tibetan. The first of the Chinese works is
Nydyapraviia ascribed to Sankarasvamin.
2. The Nyayadvdra in two translations by Ywan-Chwang
and FTsing respectively, and attributed to Dignaga.
3- Similarly there are two works in Tibetan {d) Nydyapra-
visadvara and {b) Nydyapravesa, both of them ascribed to
Dignaga,
Both Murakami and Sugiura, on an examination of the
Chinese texts, but without any knowledge of Tibetan sources,
came to the conclusion that the two Chinese works, Nydyapravesa
Bsxdi^ydyadvdra were different. S. C. Vidyabhushan working
from the Tibetan side alone and relying chiefly upon an
examination of one of the two works, Nydyadvdra, reduced these
to three, the two Tibetan works being regarded by»him as one.
^ For a full statement of the opposite position reference may be made to the
Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, Baroda, volume
Appendix
1G9
Mironov was able since to compare the Tibetan Nyayadvara with
the Sanskrit Nywyapravesa and found the two to be the same
work, the Tibetan apparently being a translation from the
Sanskrit. Mironov also considered the Nyayapravesa as also
identical with the two works relying on the remark of Harib-
hadra, the Jain commentator. According to Tubianski Harib-
hadra’s comment cannot bear the inference drawn from it that
the NyWyapravesa was a work of Dignaga.
H. Ui in his Vaiseshika philosophy (1917) was in a position to
compare the two Chinese texts, Nydyapravesa and Nyayadvara,
and the Tibetan work Nyayadvara. His conclusion was that the
Tibetan Nyayadvara or Nyayapf^avesadvara was quite different
from the Chinese Nyayadvara, but is the same as the Chinese
Nyayapravesa. This reduces the position of there being only
two works, the Tibetan Nyayaprav2sadvara being a translation
of the Chinese Nyayapravesa, the two constitute but one
work, and the Chinese Nyayadvara stands distinct. S. C.
Vidyabhushan in his latest work on the History of Indian
Logic was able to prove that the Tibetan Nyayapraviia was
identical with the Tibetan Nyayadvara. So the two Tibetan
versions come to be versions of the same work and get to
be the equivalent of the Chinese work Nyayapravesa, the
Chinese Nyayadvara standing distinct. The question to decide
therefore is who is the author of the Nyayapravesa, and
who of the Nyayadvara. The latter is correctly attributed,
according to Tubianski, to Dignaga, as this figures among
the works of Dignaga according to FTsing under the slightly
different names Hetu-Vidya-Nyaya-dvara Sasira abbreviated
into Nyayadvara. In this form it is also mentioned by Dignaga
himself in his Pramana Samucchaya Vftti. Further the Chinese
Nyayadvara contains ilokas quoted by Vachaspati Misra as
from Dignaga, although they have been found to be in the
Pramanasa^nucchaya of Dignaga. The Nyayadvara therefore
becomes a work of Dignaga. Did he write the Nyayapravesa
also ? Here it would be much better to quote Tubianski
textually : —
‘ But if it i? true that Nyayadvara was written by Dignaga, it
is impossible that Nyayapravesa should be also written by him.
For this we have inner and outer grounds. The inner ground is,
that both works are not only different, but so different that they
110
MAJSfIMEKHALAI
could not be produced by the same author. Sugiura pointed out
already that in Nyayapraveia there are added some types of
fallacies of the thesis which are not mentioned in Nyayadvam and
that the fourteen types of fallacies of refutation (dushanabhasd) of
Nyayadvara are omitted in Nyayapraveia, But the absence of
these fourteen dusanabhosas signifies a radical reform of the whole
logical doctrine inside Dignaga’s school of course. These
dmambhosas fill almost half of the whole text of Nyayadvara,
and represent a hardly justifiable remainder of the anciept brah>
manical Nyaya, Dignaga himself ascribes their origin to
Aksapada and though the questpn is not as yet cleared histori-
cally, it seems that they correspond indeed to the twenty-four
varieties of jati, expounded in the first chapter of the fifth book of
the Nyayasutras, They were reduced— probably by Dignaga to
fourteen, and incorporated not only into his Nyayadvdra, but even
in the Pramanasamucchaya, which must have been written consider-
ably later. That they are useless as such and that all their logical
and even eristical import can be safely represented by the ordi-
nary hetvabhasas, treated under the topic of sadha7iabhasa, was
clearly shown by the disposition of Nydyap^'avBsa, as well as by
Dharmakirii in his Nyayabhidu, If we add the extreme lucidity
of the terminology and of the whole manner of exposition which
characterizes NyayapravBia in contradistinction to Nyayadvara,
their belonging to different authors will be beyond doubt.’ The
following are the external evidence : —
1. Chinese information must be reliable as the Nydya-
pravesa has remained their basal text for logical studies.
2. Among the list of works of Dignaga in I’Tsing, none
of tfie names could be regarded as corresponding to the name
NydyapravBsa according to Tubianski.
3. The Tibetans apparently made an error in equating
the Nyayapraveia and Nydyadvdra as the Tibetans did not
possess a translation of the Nyayadvara,
4. The Tibetans seem almost aware of their error when
they say in one of their catalogues that the Nyayapraveia should
not be confounded with the Nyayadvara.
PROLOGUE
The Goddess Champapati, the guardian deity of this
land of Jambudvipa, who had her birth on the top of
‘ the golden mountain,’ with a coiffure of matted locks
and an effulgence resembling that of the sun, remained
seated under the shade of the spreading branches of a
Jambu tree, performing penance to counteract the evil
wrought by Rakshasas of cruel deeds. King Kantama,
the Chola, wishing to have water which would make the
dynasty of the sun prosper, prayed of Rishi Agastya for
the favour. Agastya accordingly allowed his water jar to
get upset, and the water flowing therefrom flowed straight
east and reached the seaJn the immediate neighbour-
hood of where goddess Champapati was doing penance.
The venerable lady got up to welcome with pleasure the
young lady of the river thus approaching, and addressed
her ‘ Hail ! heavenly Ganga, much beloved of all, the
brilliant one that satisfied the desire of the king for
water.’ Rishi Agastya who did not feel it undignified
in him to follow her, told the young lady Kaveri, ‘ Dear
one, this venerable ascetic is worthy of your obeisaiipe.
Do show her the respect due to her.’ The daughter
of Tamil, of unfailing bounty even when the dry summer
should last far longer than its length, and even when the
sovereigns of the Tamil land should become unrighteous
by chance, sovereigns who in the land of Bhai^ta \^ere
far-famed for unswerving righteousness, made a profound
obeisance and stood respectfully in front of her. ‘ May
you prosper^ this city which, from the days of creation
by Maha- Brahma of all the creatures of the world of gods
and all the worlds of Brahma, had been known by my
name ; may it be known hereafter by yours.’
112
MANIMEKHALAI
The great city composed of two separate divisions was
in the tumult of the announcement of the great festival
to Indra ‘ of the hundred sacrifices.’ Hearing of the
announcement, Chitrapati, her mind distraught, sent
word of it to her daughter Madhavi through her com-
panion Vasantamala. Following this came Manime-
khalai’s entry into the flower garden outside the city
for gathering flowers. Then, seeing that, the young
Chola prince was following Fer into the garden. She
entered the crystal hall in it and shut herself in. Seeing
her foi-m through the glass, he returned with a mind
somewhat unhinged at the failure. Then there appeared
the goddess Manimekhala ; carrying Manimekhalai away
from the garden, she left her in the island of Mani-
pallavam. This goddess of high repute then woke
up Manimekhalai’s companion Sutamati in the garden.
Manimekhalai herself woke up in the island and finding
herself alone, wandered about till she came in sight
of a Buddha seat of bright effulgence. She learnt
from the miraculous seat all that took place in her
previous birth. Appearing before her then, goddess
Manimekhala taught her some mantras to be used
as -occasion arose. Then there appeared before her
Tivatilakai, the goddess of the island. By means of this
last, Manimekhalai obtained.possession of the miraculous
begging-bowl of the Buddha. With the begging-bowl
in her hand, and accompanied by her mother and her
congpaniOn, Manimekhalai visited the sage Aravana
Adigal. The sage taught her the actual nature of
Aputra. He further recounted to her how he obtained
the begging-bowl from the ‘goddess of learning.’
Manimekhalai carried that miraculous bowl in her hand
and entered the streets of Puhar for begging. Ladies of
chastity in the city deposited alms for her in the bowl.
PROLOGUE
113
The good damsel having satisfied the insatiable hunger
of Kayasandikai, entered the public hall of travellers in
the city. Hearing of her presence there, the prince
followed her to the public hall. To save herself from
his importunities, she assumed the form of a Vidyadhara
woman. The king, his father, strict in administering
justice, transformed the State-prison into a house of
charity* The Vidyadhara Kanchana approached Mani-
mekhalai in the belief that she was Kayasandikai, his
wife; he found her however irfesponsive, to his surprise and
chagrin. This Vidyadhara cut the prince in two by his
sword when he came near her, in the belief that he was
responsible for his wife’s estrangement from him. Sorrow-
stricken at his death, Manimekhalai consoled herself on
hearing what the divine statue had told her. The king
then threw her into prison from which she was ultimately
released. Manimekhalai taught the queen the Buddha-
dharma and passed on to the kingdom of Aputra.
Taking him with her she went to Manipallavam. There
she assumed the form of a venerable ascetic and entered
Vanji. In that city she learnt from teachers of different
sects their religious dogmas. Searching there for
Aravana Adigal and ‘ the mothers ’ she entered Kanchi.
At Kanchi throwing off her disguise, she became a dis-
ciple of Aravana Adigal. Taught by him, she assumed
the form of an ascetic and devoted herself to the perform-
ance of penance in order that she might destroy birth
in this world. These separate incidents constitute the
story of her life, which prince Ilango listened to with
great kindness, when the prosperous grain merchant
Sattan, had«set these separate incidents, each in a book
of its own, and composed -a work of thirty poems in
excellent Tamil on the subject of the renunciation of
Manimekhalai. *
IS
114
MAJ^IMEKHALAI
BOOK I
On the advice of Agastya of the Malaya Hill, the
Chola king who destroyed the ‘ castle in the air ’ of the
Rakshasas^ stood before Indra in profound obeisance and
prayed of him, for the enhancement of the fame of his
old city, that Indra might be present during the twenty-
eight days of the (great Indra) festival in Puhar. As
Indra with great beneficence consented, the well-informed
people of the city used to celebrate the festival without
fail. Therefore all those teachers of varying religions
who expounded absolute truth, actual practice of the
world, the good teachings of truth, and of release from
worldly life, and those expert in ‘ the science ’ ^ of time
never ceased to reside in the city. Along with these,
there were the gods themselves who had assumed forms
of less brilliant effulgence, people of various languages
that had collected in vast numbers than was usual, the five
bodies of ministers and the eight bodies of officials of
varying degrees. These arranged for the announcement
of the festival by beat of the great royal drum, as the
guardian deity in the public square and the deity set up
in the bazaar will both molest the inhabitants of the city
if, liy chance, the celebration of the festival should be
forgotten. In this belief the prosperous drum in the
temple of Vajrayudha^ was taken out and placed on the
back of the royal elephant, and by beat of that drum,
the announcement was made in the following terms : —
* ‘ May the city of this old royal family prosper !
May the land be blessed with the three rains every
month ! May the planets follow their course because of
the righteousness of the sovereigns ! On the occasion of
^ Astrologers. i
The characteristic weapon of Indra, Sakti, thunderbolt.
BOOK I
115
the propitiatory festival of this great land, the thousand-
eyed Indra along with the four classes of Devas (gods), and
the eight ganas or groups of Devatas (minor gods), would
arrive here in the city making the heaven of Indra empty,
as was this royal city itself, when the great Chola Karikala
left the city on a distant expedition of conquest. Do there-
fore decorate the city, the great royal roads and the halls
of faukless learning ; put in their appropriate places
jars filled with water, seed vessels with budding sprouts
and statues holding lampS. Decorate the streets and
buildings with areca and plantain trees carrying bunches
of fruit, creepers of vanji and other kinds, and plant
them with sugar-cane. Along the open plinths of houses
suspend strings of pearls from pillar to pillar. Remove
the old soil and spread new sand over the streets. Hoist
flags and hang festoons over the gateways of houses.
Tidy up temples ranging from that of the god “with
an eye in the forehead to the guardian deity of the
public square, with what requires to be done under the
instructions of those expert in it. Let those well-versed
in the holy teachings take their place under awnings, or
in canopied halls. Let those well-versed in various reli-
gions assemble in the halls of learning set apart for discus-
sion. Give up feelings of enmity even to those who'are
inimical to you. Do all these things, these twenty-eight
days when the gods and men in friendly company keep
moving about on hillocks of sand, in gardens full of
flowers, in islets in river beds and in bathing gjiats.’
This announcement by beat of the royal drum Vas
made while warriors with drawn swords, cars and cavalry
and elephants moved in procession escorting the State
elephant which carried the drum. The announcement
^ ^iva.«
#
MAlsTIMEKHALAl
116
closed with the prayer that hunger, disease and enmity
may cease to exist, and that rain and the resulting
prosperity may perpetually be on the rise.
BOOK II
On the occasion of the great festival thus announced,
Madhavi and her daughter Manimekhalai were* not in
their accustomed place. Distracted with grief at this
remissness on the part of her <?aughter and grand-daughter,
Chitrapati summoned her daughter’s companion Vasan-
tamala and sent word through her that the great Indra
festival had been announced. Vasantamala being of
Ghitrapati’s way of thinking went to where Madhavi and
her daughter were, and seeing their languishing form,
told her in sorrowful tones ; —
‘ Have you cause of dissatisfaction ? You that are
expert in the arts in their varied branches, does it not
ill-become you to assume the garb of penance ? So say
all people in the city, the wise people and the others
alike. It does not become you to be that. It is much
rather matter for shame that you should adopt this line of
conduct.’ Madhavi replied : ‘ Having heard of the death
of my beloved, I have lived without sending my life away
along with his. I have lost the esteem of this beautiful
old city and have given up all feeling of shame. When
women in worldly life lose their husbands, they heave
sighs oi sorrow and give up their own lives. Failing
that, they usually consign themselves to the flames, enter-
ing fire as if it were the cool water of a tank. If
they should not do that, they would wear their body out
in prayer and penance in order that they may, in another
birth, live happily with their beloved. This is the way of
the chaste in this, broad world. Our dear one Kanriaki,
BOOK III
11^
the chaste wife of my beloved, finding it impossible to
bear, the sorrow of the calamity that had overtaken her
husband, with her hair all dishevelled, with tears flowing
in torrents over her breasts, burnt the great city of the
Pandyas by mutilating her breast. Manimekhalai the
daughter of that chaste one is fit only for the life of an
ascetic and not for the life of a courtesan full of evil.
Further than this in the extremity of sorrow I came
here to the hermitage of the holy ones and threw myself
at the feet of the sage Aravaha Adigalas the only saviour.
Learning from me what had befallen my beloved one, he
taught me that “ those that are born enjoy only growing
suffering. Those that cease to be born do enjoy un-
ending great bliss. By attachment comes the first ;
giving up attachment brings the next. Bear this in mind.”
He further expounded the character of the 'sllas (discip-
line according to Buddhism), and impressed it upon me
that this is the only way of saving oneself. Please there-
fore convey this to my beautiful companions and my
mother.’ Hearing this from her, Vasantamala, not
knowing what to do, returned as if she had dropped a
jewel of immeasurable value in the sea.
BOOK III
Information of this reached Manimekhalai, as the
time had come for her to give up attachment to things
worldly. So she wept tears of great sorrow for the fate
that had befallen her father Kovalan and his chaste ife.
She was therefore asked to throw away the garland of
flowers that^he was then making as it had got contaminat-
ed by her tears, and directed to go and bring fresh
flowers for making other garlands as a diversion from
her sorrow. Madhavi’s companion Sutamati protested
118
MAUilMEKHALAl
against her going alone as the great charm of her looks
was likely to prove dangerous to her in the great city.
Sutamati took occasion to explain to Madhavi that a
similar lonely adventure was the cause of her presence
in the Chola capital. She was the wife of a Brahman
Kausika in Champa (Bhagalpur on the Ganges). She
went into a garden alone for gathering flowers when she
was carried off by a Vidyadhara who was flying through
the air to see the festival of Indra at Puhar. Having
spent some time with her, fee left her behind in the city
and went away to his own place, and that accounted for
her presence in the city. She pointed out therefore the
danger that beset young women being found alone, and
offered to escort Manimekhalai to the garden. Reject-
ing a number of flower gardens in the city as being
exposed to one or other of the dangers from men or
beings other than men, she pointed to a garden outside the
city, with ever-flowering trees, and sacred to the memory
of Buddha. It contained in it a pavilion made of crystal
containing a lotus seat with the footmarks of the Buddha
of miraculous power. Flowers in bloom shot into full
blossom immediately, if placed on it ; full blown flowers
placed on it never faded; bees would not smell them.
Further, people who wished to offer flowers to any of
the 'gods would have their wishes fulfilled if, with
their thoughts on their gods, they placed their flower
offerings on the seat ; if without any thought flowers
should ,be placed on it, they would never go out of it.
This Buddha seat with the peculiar features described
above was erected in this garden by the divine architect
Maya, to illustrate at one and the same time the two
principles that those who do a thing without setting
their minds upon it in full, will not reap the fruit of
their action 7 and that whatever is done without an un-
BOOK IV
119
disturbed resolution of the mind to do so, will not bear
fruit. Having said this Sutamati with Manimekhalai
went along threading their way through the various
crowds of idle people, a crowd following these two
praising the beauty of Manimekhalai and blaming her
mother for having consigned her to this life of asceticism,
and ultimately reached the flower garden, which was
their objective.
BOOK IV
Having reached the garden, Manimekhalai and her
companion wandered round enjoying the lovely scenes
in it, to which Manimekhalai’s attention was drawn by her
companion. The city was in the meanwhile in great
commotion as the state elephant Kalavegam got into mast
and went out of control. As it turned hither and thither
in the city like a ship caught in a tornado causing destruc-
tion on its way, the prince, heir-apparent, mounting his
horse, went after it at the head of a guard to bring it
back to discipline. Having successfully done so, he
was returning in his car leading the victorious guard
that attended him and the crowd that gathered round
the cavalcade. Passing through the street of tiie
dancing women, he saw, in the front', room of the first
floor of one of the houses, a merchant prince standing
like a very statue with the stem of his vina in his
embrace, his sweet-heart by him. Looking through the
window the prince asked the young merchant what* it
was that had so stunned him. The young merchant
said in reply, that, as he was playing on the vhia, he
looked out through the window and saw Manimekhalai
in the garb of a Buddhist noviciate passing along with
her companion towards the flcnver garden -outside the
120
MAJ^IMEKHALAI
city. The sight of her brought to his recollection all
that befell her father Kovalan in Madura. Thus
disturbed in mind, his fingers passed unconsciously on to
the wrong string, and that was what actually brought
him to the painful state of abstraction in which the
prince found him. Understanding from what he said
that Maniimehhalai had gone to the garden, the prince
turned back telling the young merchant that he would
proceed forthwith and bring back Manimekhalai with
him in his car, and rapidly "drove forward. When the
car came near the garden Manimekhalai heard the
rattle of the approaching wheels and told her companion
that she had heard from her grandmother that prince
Udayakumara had set his heart upon her, and that, in all
probability, the approach of the rattling sound gave
indication of his coming. She wished to know what
exactly she could do to escape this calamity. Sutamati,
her companion, asked her to get into the crystal pavilion
in the garden and bolt the door from the inside. She
then took her stand five bows’ distance from the
pavilion. The prince having approached the pavilion
and seeing the solitary maiden at some distance
accosted her ‘ You are now standing alone here in this
lonely garden. I understand you came here along with
Malaimekhalai, Has she attained to the wisdom that
she sought ? Has she recovered her charming smiles ?
Have her eyes got back their enchanting beauty ? How
is it that she has given up the vihara of the Buddhist
mendicants and come to this garden ? ’ On hearing this
Sutamati felt as one thrown into an underground cellar
without opening, and said to the prinoe in reply:
‘You are descended from the great Chola Karikala, who,
as a youth, assumed the garb of age in order that he
may do jusfice in a cause brought up before the monarch.
BOOK V
121
Young as you are in age, are you not ripe in wisdom?
Is there anything that women can teach you ? There
cannot be. Even so let me present unto you the
following : — ‘‘The human body is the product of action
(Karma); is the source of further action. If you remove
that which is worn to decorate it, it will show nothing but
flesh. It is subject to age and decay. It is the seat of
disease. It is the cause of attachment to those that
attach themselves to things earthly. It is full of evil.
Long-standing hatred lies c hidden in it as a poisonous
cobra in its hole. It contains within itself the con-
sciousness which is subject to suffering in the present, to
helplessness to get out of it, to fainting in the effort to do
so, and bitter sorrow as a result thereof. Understand,
therefore, oh, prince, this indeed is the nature of a
human being. Please turn aside from this, your
attachment to her. ” ’ Before even these words could
reach his ears, he saw within the crystal chamber the
form of Manimekhalai.
BOOK V
At sight of the fair form of Manimekhalai, he stood
for a moment rapt in admiration of the beauty of her
form, like a painter who had just conceived the idea,sf a
beauty for painting. Realizing however, that it^was
Manimekhalai herself, enchanting in her beauty like the
Goddess Lakshmi dancing in front of the Asuras, his one
thought was to enter the pavilion. He went round the
crystal wall feeling with his hand for the door,* and^ot
finding anything to give indication of an opening, he
turned round to Sutamati and asked her to describe to
him what sort of a maiden her companion was. She
replied : ‘ If she is not attracted by your youthful beauty
and will not feast her eyes with the sight q| your young
16
122
MAIiTIMEKHALAI
form, she is undoubtedly one given to austerity as a
result of her previous good deeds. She is capable of
invoking imprecations that will not fail. She is one on
whom love has no influence.’ The Prince said in reply
that when love gains possession of her heart, there is
nothing that would restrain her, and that, enchantingly
beautiful as she was, he would still make her his own,
and turned away from both of them to return .-to the
Palace. As he turned round, he told Sutamati that the
whole town used to speak o^ her as one that was left in
the midst of a Jain nunnery by a Vidyadhara, and asked
her to let him know how it happened that she had given
up the Jain hermitage and accompanied Manimekhalai
to the garden. Sutamati replied that she was the
daughter of a Brahman and his wife both of Champa
(Bhagalpur in Bengal). Having lost her mother early,
and while she was still under the guardianship of her
father, she was carried off by a Vidyadhara called Maru-
tavega, from her native place. The father, coming in
search of her towards the famous bathing ghat of
Kanyakumari ‘constructed by monkeys’, saw her in this
town as he was returning after his morning bath in the
Kaveri. Having enquired how I came to be here, he
wddd not give me up, although I had become unworthy
to live among Brahmans, and took upon himself the life
of a mendicant beggar to eke out his and my livelihood.
In one of his begging rounds a cow, recently in calf, ran
at him and tore open his stomach. Holding his entrails
in his hand, he came to the hermitage of the Jains, which
not long since w^as my habitation, and sought asylum with
them. The inmates of the hermitage rather than give
asylum turned me out from thei'e and sent me along
with him. We were wandering in this forlorn condition
crying out if There were any kind-hearted people to take
BOOK V
123
us into their protection. A kind-hearted Buddhist
Bhikshu who was coming on his mid-day round, handing
his begging bowl to me, carried my father to the viliWray
where he and his companions lived, and thus helped to
dispel my father’s pains and sorrows of death. This
hermit Sanghadharma taught her the teaching of the
Buddha ; — ‘ My king possessed of all good qualities
by nature, the object of all good qualities without
diminution, having learned by experience various
kinds of life in this world, took it upon himself to use
his life not for the attainment of his own salvation, but
for the exercise of kindness to things living, in order
that the whole mass of living beings might attain to that
salvation. Thus turning the wheel of the law, he con-
quered desire. Excepting his beautiful feats and their
celebration, I have given up using my tongue for any-
thing else. May you prosper, Oh excellent Prince. This
in brief is my history ! ’
Having understood her history, the prince took leave
of her giving her his mind that he would still gain the
heart of Manimekhalai through her grandmother Chitra-
pati, and went away from the garden. Manimekhalai
came out from the crystal chamber fixing her eyes upon
the Prince, and told Sutamati : — ‘ My heart runs after
the Prince, stranger though he is to me, and notwith-
standing the fact that he described me as possessed of no
virtue, as having no right knowledge for the performance
of penance, not having the protection of caste, and liable
to be purchased for a price. Instead of feeling a«gry
that he should have thus described me contemptuously,
how is it tha-t ray heart yearns for him ? Is this the nature
of what is called Love ? If that is so, may it be destroyed.’
Thus saying the two stood for a while where they
were. • ,
#
124
MAlSflMEKHALAI
J ust then there appeared in the guise of a lady of the
city, the goddess Manimekhala, with a view to witnessing
the celebration of the great festival just then taking place
in the city. She went round the pavilion containing the
seat of the Buddha, reciting the following laudation ; —
‘ Shall I describe you as the knowing One, the pure One
of good deeds, the ancient One, the exalted One, who
knew how to lead life in this world ? Shall I describe
you as the One who got beyond the reach of love, who
was the sure guardian of all,^ as the One who destroyed
the eneray, evil conduct? How shall I describe the
feet of him who set the wheel of a thousand spokes in
motion, without a thousand tongues to describe with?’
Having said this, the goddess Manimekhala came down
to the earth like a gem emiting fire and stood aside. Just
then the setting sun sent across a bright effulgence of
light on the palace tower which was the face of the lady,
the city of Puhar. All nature began slowly to transform
itself from the aspect of day into that of evening, when
darkness strode in into the beautiful garden just like a
young woman, who having lost her husband on the field
of battle, returns, with nothing of her bright cheerfulness,
to her parents.
BOOK VI
The evening passed and the rising moon sent forth
its silver beams as if a whole quantity of milk was poured
out from a silver jar. The goddess Manimekhala
appeared worshipping the footmarks of ‘ the Primeval
First, One possessed of inexhaustible mercy ’. Seeing
the anxious-looking Sutamati, and her companion, she
asked her what it was that troubled them. The former
described to her what had taken place just a little before,
and gave Imr to understand the danger in which
BOOK VI
125
Manimekhalai was placed at the time. The Goddess
replied that the love of the prince to Manimekhalai would
not diminish. He went out of the grove, as he did, out
of regard for the fact that the grove was one where dwelt
holy ones engaged in their penance. It would be
dangerous if Manimekhalai went out of the precincts into
the public highways of the town. She therefore advised
them to get through the western postern of the garden
and spend the night in the Chakravala Kottam, inhabited
chiefly by those devoted* to performing penances of
various kinds. The place was referred to by that name
only by the goddess and by Marutavegan, who brought
Sutamati down to Puhar ; but to others in the great city
the place was known by the name ‘ the temple of the
burning-ghat (Sudukattu Kottam) Sutamati asked to
know the reason why the goddess called the place by
that name. The goddess said that the burning ground
which came into existence along with the town itself,
was next adjoining the grove. It is enclosed in a circuit
of walls broken by four gates. It cottained a temple
dedicated to Kali, and monuments of various sizes
bearing inscriptions descriptive of those whose dead
remains they cover. These inscriptions give the details of
the name, caste, mode of life and station in society^nd
the manner of death of those whose monuments* they
happen to be, each one of them. There are besides pillars
dedicated to the various gods of the burning-ghat to
which are made various offerings. There are^platforms
built of stone, chambers for guards for sheltering them-
selves from wind and weather. There are besides
triumphal .arches and shady spaces in various parts.
This place is also divided into sections for various forms
of disposal of the dead. A small space is set apart for
burning corpses ; another where the corpses are simply
126
MANIMEKHALAI
thrown ; a third where the corpses are actually buried in
graves dug in the earth ; others where corpses are set in
small chambers made in the earth, their mouths being
closed afterwards ; and lastly another part where corpses
are left covered over by huge earthern pots. Up to the
midnight people keep coming and going constantly
engaged in one or other of these various ways of
disposing of the dead, and there is unceasing noise in
the locality created by the crowd of visitors, the tom-tom
beaten for the dead, the soucids of those that recite the
merits of recluses that died, the cries of those that weep
for the dead, the howling of the jackals and the hooting
of the owls. Different kinds of trees also are found
grown close to each other. There are places with
standing Vuhai trees, the favourite haunt of evil spirits ;
with the tree Vila, the resort of birds eating fat and flesh
of the dead ; the shade of Vanid, the resort of the
Kapalikas ; places of Ilandai to which resort mendicant
ascetics making garlands of broken skulls. There are
other unshaded, unwooded places, the resort of people
who live by eating the flesh of corpses. The whole
place is otherwise strewn with pots in which fire had
been carried ; pots of another shape in which articles for
oth3l* funeral uses had been carried ; torn garlands,
broken water pots, fried paddy and other articles of
offerings to the dead. While death without regard to
age, standing, condition or kind of life, goes about killing
in heaps in this fashion, to be disposed of in this field of
death as described above, is there anything more foolish
that could be imagined than that there should be people
who still place faith in wealth and, losing thejjiselves in
its enjoyment, live their life without doing good ?
Such a fearsome place of death happened to be
visited by a Brahman youth in the belief that it was a
BOOK VI
127
part of the city. He saw there an evil spirit in ecstatic
dance, and taking fright at the apparition, ran to where
his mother, Gautami, was and could hardly tell her that
he gave up his life to a spirit of the burning-ghat he
had the misfortune to see, when he died. Distracted
with grief at the death of their only support, the mother
cried out in despair : ‘ Who could it be that took
away the life of the youth who was the mainstay of her
own self and the aged Brahman, her husband, both of
them blind and faint with age and infirmities ? Carrying
her only son’s corpse, she went to the gate of the
burning-ghat, invoked the goddess of the town and
demanded of her how she happened to fail in her duty of
protection of this youth, when she had made it her busi-
ness to see that no harm befell anybody in the burning-
ghat, places of assembly, the ground round old trees,
sequestered temples, and other places occasioning fear
in people. She demanded to know if the goddess lost
her righteousness, and if so, what exactly it was that
she herself can do in regard to the matter.’
The goddess appeared in response to this invocation
and asked her what it was that made her so sorrow-
stricken as to brave the dangers of a midnight visit to
the burning-ghat. Learning from her of the death of
her son, she told the disconsolate mother that no devil
nor evil spirit did take her son’s life ; his ignorance and
his previous deeds are entirely responsible for his death.
Old Gautami offered to give up her life if the. goddess
would restore her son to life, as thus restored^he would
be a protection to his father. The goddess replied again
that when ®ne’s life goes out of the body, it follows the
track of its deeds and gets into another birth immedi-
ately ; there could hardly be any doubt in regard to this.
‘To restore life that is gone’is not matter possible of
. • * \
128
MAISTIMEKHALAI
achievement. Therefore give up useless sorrow for the
death of your son. If it were otherwise, are there not
many who would give life for life for kings of this earth?
Do you not see in front of you hundreds of monuments
erected to the memory of dead sovereigns. Give up,
therefore, talk of cruelty, which would lead you only to
the sufferings of hell.’ Gautami said in reply : ‘ I have
heard it said, gods can do whatever people pray for, on
the authority of the Veda. If you will not give me the
boon that I pray for, I shall this moment destroy my
life.’ The goddess in her turn said : ‘ If, within the
circuit of the Universe, any one of the innumerable
gods can grant you the boon that you ask for, I shall be
quite pleased to do so myself. But see now what I can
do.’
Having said this, she brought down before Gautami,
the four classes of Arupa (formless) Brahmas, sixteen
Rupa ('having form) Brahmas, the two light-emanating
bodies, the six classes of gods, innumerable Rakshasas,
the eight kinds of men, several groups of stars, ‘ the day
asterisms,’ the planets, all of them comprised within the
circuit of the Universe and capable of granting boons to
those that pray for them. Bringing all these in the pre-
sence of Gautami the goddess asked these to give the
boon'of the sorrow-stricken Brahrhan lady, and explained
to them the condition of Gautami. All of them in one
voice gave reply of a tenor similar to that in which she
ans vered 'the question to Gautami. Understanding the
truth from-this, Gautami reconciled herself in a way to
her sadly bereaved condition, and, disposing off the dead
body of her son, returned. Thereafter to illustrate to
the coming generations the extraordinary power of the
Goddess Champapati, Maya, the divine architect, con-
structed this fiionument with the mountain Meru in the
r
BOOK VII
129
middle, with the seven mountains all round it, four great
islands, two thousand smaller islands, with other places
of note, containing the kind of beings said to live
in them. This was done by him as memorial of the
visit of the beings of the Universe at command of
Champapati. As this building was in the immediate
vicinity of the burning-ghat, it came to be known popu-
larly as the ‘ temple of the burning-ghat Manimekhalai
who was listening to this colloquy between her friend
and the goddess, could only remark : — ‘ This indeed is
the character of life on this earth’. After a little while,
Sutamati the companion fell asleep, and the goddess
Manimekhala putting young Manimekhalai to sleep by
a charm, carried her through the air thirty yofanas south
and leaving her there, went her way.
BOOK VII
The goddess returned to Puhar, and appeared before
Prince Udayakumara spending a sleepless night in bed,
revolving constantly in his mind that with the dawn he
would still secure possession of Manimekhalai. Presenting
herself to him in a vision, the goddess addressed him in
the following words : ‘ Oh, Son of the great king ! If Ae
king change from righteousness ever so little, planets
themselves will move out of their orbits ; if planets change
their course, rainfall will diminish ; with shortage of
rainfall, all life on earth will cease; the king will often
cease to be regarded as king, because he would sdemjiot
to regard all life as his own ; therefore cast awdy the evil
thoughts that you set upon Manimekhalai, who has
assumed the* life of a celibate.’ Passing from there to
the garden, and waking up Sutamati who was fast asleep,
she told her that she was goddess Manimekhala, that
she came there to see the great festival of Indra, that she
17 A
. • • V
130
MA]nTIMSKHALAI
(Sutamati) had no cause to fear, as the opportune time had
come for Manimekhalai to follow the path of the Buddha,
and gave her the information that for this reason, she
had carried Manimekhalai away from Puhar and left her in
Manipallavam, wherefrom she would return on the seventh
day to Puhar, having learnt in the meanwhile all that
took place in her own and Sutamati’s previous existence
on earth. The Goddess added that although she .would
appear in a disguise, which would baffle identification of
her by anybody in the city, her identity would be to her
manifest ; on the day that she returns to Puhar, there
would be many strange appearances in the city. Having
said this, she asked Sutamati to inform Madhavi of the
appearance of the goddess and of what took place in
respect of her daughter, pointing out to her that she was
on the way to enter the right path. The goddess then
told Sutamati that Madhavi had already knowledge of
who the goddess was. ‘ When Kovalan told Madhavi
to name their daughter after the patron deity of the family,
I appeared before MMhavi in a dream and told her:
“You have become the mother of a child who, devoting
herself to a life of penance, would destroy the influence
of the God of Passion so completely that he would for
ever remain helpless not knowing what to do.” She
asked Sutamati to remind Madhavi of this, which she
told her in a dream though in a manner of one talking
to her in physical presence.’
Sutamati woke up and in distress because of her
separation from Manimekhalai, was in great fear of
remaining where she was, as she could hear the noise of
various fearsome transactions, at dead of Alight in the
burning ghat of the city. She therefore went across the
postern in the enclosing wall, and entered the adjoining
Chakravalakottam. Entering the great Dharmasala
BOOK Vlli
131
there, she retired to a corner in the building, where to
her great fear, a statue, on a pillar in front of her, began
to address her in the following terms ; — ‘ Oh, the rare
daughter of Ravivarma, the wife of Durjaya, of immense
cavalry, you that met your death by an elephant when
you had lost control of yourself, so as to bring about in
consequence the death of Tarai your elder sister ! You
the daaghter of the Brahman Kausika of Champa inhabited
by Karalar ! You that came into the city in the company
ot Marutavegan and joined the company of your elder
sister Tarai! You that were known Virai in your
previous birth, and are known Sutamati in this life, listen.
Your younger sister Lakshmi, understanding all that
happened in her previous life and yours, will return to
this city seven days from to-day. Therefore have no
fear that she has been taken away from you.’ In these
words the statue spoke to her in the voice of a God.
Sutamati, her fears increased on Tearing this, managed
to spend the night somehow, and, starting at break of
day, went through the streets of the city to the house of
Madhavi and recounted to her all that took place the
previous day. On hearing of what had taken place and
of the disappearance of Manimekhalai, Madhavi Ayas
stricken with sorrow like a cobra which had lost its crest
jewel, while Sutamati, in her company, remained in-
capable of action like a being whose life had gone out of
her, because of the separation of Manimekhalai from her.
BOOK VIII
While Sutamati was in this state of sorrow, Mani-
mekhalai w^ke up from sleep on the sandy beach of
Manipallavam. Looking round she found nothing that
was familiar to her, and felt herself as strangely placed
as a soul in a new birth. While she was Lardiy able to
132
MAljllMSKHALAI
think what she could do, the sun rose, and in the sunlight
she began to wonder whether this was a part of the
garden near the city, which she had never seen before,
and called out for Sutamati, her companion : — ‘ Oh,
Sutamati, you have hidden yourself, you are causing me
great sorrow ; 1 do not understand whether I see things
as they are, or in a dream. My heart is quaking with
fear, give me word in answer ; the darkness of night has
left ; Madhavi, my mother, would be in great anxiety. Oh,
the finely bangled one, come ®n ! Have you left the place ?
Is this a miracle brought about by that lady that appeared
before me who seemed an expert in magic art ? 1 hardly
know what I can think or do ; I am in great fear being
alone. Do come quick.’ Crying out like this, she ran
about here and there to bathing-ghats on one side and to
the sand dunes on the other. All her search was in
vain, and finding nobody that she knew, she began to
weep aloud. Thinking of her father and his tragic end,
and calling upon him : ‘ Oh, ray father, father, who had
gone to another kingdom with your most delicately formed
wife, and suffered death from the swoi'd of authority.’
She wandered about till she came to what seemed a
seat of the Buddha. The seat had been placed there by
India, and had the miraculous power to let those who
worshipped it know their previous life, as the Buddha
himself had delivered a sermon sitting on it. This
happened on the occasion when two neighbouring Naga
chiefs, related to each other, fought for possession of it. As
thewar proved destructive Buddha appeared before them
and pacified the combatants by preaching the sermon.
BOOK IX
At sight of this Manimekhalai forgot herself in
wonder. Her hands autdmatically folded over her head ;
BOOK IX
133
from her eyes flowed tears of joy ; she circumambulated
the divine seat three times, and prostrated before it.
Getting up she looked at the seat again, and began to
recollect all that had taken place in her previous existence.
She recounted to herself what had happened in the
following terms : — ‘ Oh, Holy One, one that knows the
ultimate truth, I now understand clearly that all thatyou
said on the banks of the river Kayankarai is turning true ;
in the great kingdom of Gandhara, in the eastern province
of it, was the city Idavayahi (Rishabaka ?). The king
that ruled from this city, as his capital, was Attipati.
You Brahma Dharma, who art his brother-in-law, foretold
in conversation with him, while teaching him Dhayma :
“ In seven days’ time from now there will be an earth-
quake in Jambudvipa. As a result of this, this capital
city of yours and four hundred yojanas of territory in the
great Naganadu wall get submerged. Therefore abandon
this city and go away to another, sharp.” The king
announced this by beat of drum to all the citizens and
vacated the city with them. As he was moving at the
head of his people to the city of Avanti in the north he
had to remain encamped on the banks of the river
Kayankarai. Then, you Holy One ! there was the ear^-
quake, as you predicted, on the day, and at the time
indicated, and the royal city of Idavayam was destroyed.
The king and his court, their respect for you increased by
this incident, surrounded you and you were delivering
them a holy sermon. At that time,! came with my
husband Rahula to listen to the sermon. Seeing me
you were pleased to say that my husband Rahula would
die on the skcteenth day by a kind of cobra the sight of
which was death (Drishtivisha) ; that I would enter the
funeral pyre with him ; that I would then be born in the
city of Puhar, and that a great misfortune would befall me ;
l34
MANIMEKHALAI
that the Goddess Manimekhala would then appear at
dead of night, and carrying you away will settle you
down in an islet of the sea south of Kaveripattinam. You
will then learn what had transpired in this birth, while
engaged in worshipping the seat of Buddha. Then will
come to you the recollection of all that I say to you to-
day. I then requested of him that he might also enlighten
me as to what next birth my husband would have. I
received an answer from him that that matter would be
explained to me by the GodSess, who carried me away
from Kaveripattinam. That Goddess has not yet
appeared ! ’ Saying this to herself, she remained weeping
as before.
BOOK X
While she was in this state of sorrow and uncertain-
ty, the Goddess Manimekhala, knowing that Manime-
khalai had already learnt of her previous birth, and that
she was possessed of a beautiful disposition, came down
from the clouds. Moving through the air, she recited
so as to be audible to Manimekhalai, ‘ When living
beings should have lost all feeling, when their ears
sko^ild have become deaf to the good teaching, when
they should have lost all right understanding, and thus
reduce the world to a turmoil consequent upon poverty
of right knowledge, you appeared like a glorious morning
sun, after there had been long suffering owing to the loss
of l^e d^ily appearance and disappearance of the sun, to
make L^iarma prevail in the world. At your feet,
therefore, I offer my worship. I regard your seat as
yourself. I have set you on my tongue, h have placed
you on my head. 1 have seated you on my heart, a
full blown lotus flower.’ When she came within hail of
Manimekhalai, she asked her to desist from weeping.
BOOK X
135
Descending to the earth, she went right round the seat
thrice and offered it worship. Mapimekhalai in her turn
made due obeisance to the Goddess and asked her, ‘ By
your grace, I am now possessed of knowledge of my
previous birth ; where is Rahu|a born who was then my
husband ’ ? The Goddess replied : ‘ Oh, Lakshmi, you
were one day with your husband in a garden having
fallen gut with him in a love quarrel. He fell at your
feet to remove your displeasure. While in that position
there appeared a Buddhist Charana (one that moves
through air) by name Sadhu Sakkaran. He had gone
to Ratnadipa to set the “ Wheel of Law ” going, and was
returning across the air. Being mid-day, he came down
to the earth as it was the hour for taking food. Seeing
him, you were greatly frightened, and, feeling ashamed
of yourself in the condition in which you happened to be,
you offered your obeisance to him. Seeing your dis-
comfort, Rahula demanded who he was in a tone of
anger. Trembling with fear, you shut his mouth and
told him that it was an act of great error on his part not
to have done due worship at the feet of the great one
who had just descended from the air and remained with-
out addressing him in prayer. Taking him with you,
you again made profound obeisance and offered to bring
him food and drink though both of you, the husBand
and the wife, were not of his way of persuasion and
requested him to accept the food of you. The Sadhu (the
saint) consented and promised to take it. The merit
that you have thus acquired by feeding him will never
abandon you and will ultimately get rid of your rebirth.
That Rahula* your husband, is the Prince Udayakumara
who came after you to the garden at the city. It is this
that explains why he had exhibited that strong affection
for you and, what is more, your*mind also ffels attracted
. ^
236 MAI^IIMEKHALAI
to him. To change that feeling of attachment and set
you on the good path, I brought you overto this island
and showed you this seat. There is more that I can
tell you. In your former birth, ^ when you weie the
daughter of Ravivarma and his wife Amudapati, king
and queen of Ya^odharanagara, you had two ^sisters
Tarai and Virai. Those two had married the king of
Kacchayanagara in the kingdom of Anga by» name
Duchchaya (Durjaya) who took them one to see t e
hills in his kingdom, and wa*s with them on the banks of
* Ganges oAis return. Aravana Adigal canre to hrs
camp then and in reply to his enquiry as Jo what
b™ ght his Holiness there, the Holy one replied that
he had come to that part of the country to worship the
fooLInts on the hill (GrdhraWta). He said that of dd
Ruddha stood on the top of the hill and taugh
Dh^nna, in order that all living
themselves from sorrow and live in happiness,
preaching his footmarks acquired permanence ,
Sing in that condition ever since, the hi 1 acquired
re name Padapankayamalai (the hill of the Lotus foot-
mark) He advised the monarch also to go and offer
.^orshio at it. By the merit so acquired by worship at
the'feet both your sisters are born respectively as your
^ *:^er’and he/companion Sutamati. Oln M^pimchha-
\ lai now you understand your former birth. You h
acquired a notion of what ■ih^ Dharma is. You
''‘will some day in future hear^ of *
secra: -gg.. other persuasions. These latter may
hesita?'‘.,g teach you because you are a young woman,
^yf’.s such knowledge is essential to you, you will^ have
assume a form more worthy of that teaching. o
®-*^v5ngshe taught Manimekhalai two (spells or
'iSations, at the thought of which she could acquire
BOOK XI
137
respectively the capacity to move through the air and to
assume any form that would suit her for the occasion.
She retired telling her that one essential that Manime-
khalai should remember was that she should adopt the
path of Dharma as taught by the Buddha, and the next,
that she was to offer her worship to the seat and return.
Having ascended the air, she came down again and
asked Manimekhalai, ‘ You have undertaken to follow the
path of discipline. Human bodies are built of food, and
hunger is a great necessity.-’ She taught Manimekhalai
therefore another mantra^ which would get rid of hunger
at the thought of it. Having given her this, she left and
disappeared through the air.
BOOK XI
Manimekhalai walked about admiring the beauty of
the sand dunes, flower gardens and cool tanks. In a
short while there appeared before her a lady who ac-
costed her : ‘ Who are you that have arrived here alone
like a woman who had suffered shipwreck ? ’ Manimekha-
lai enquired in reply to which of her births the
question referred, answering the question none
the less that in her previous birth she went by the
name Lakshmi and was the wife of a prince Ci.lled
Rahula. In the present birth, she was the daughter of
Madhavi, a dancing woman. She was known by the
name Manimekhalai, and she was brought to that parti-
cular spot of that island by the Goddess Maq,imekhala
from the pleasure garden just outside of her native 'city
Kaveripattinam. She concluded by saying that by
means of hej worship of the ‘ Buddha-seat ’ in front of
them she had learnt her previous birth. So saying she
wished to know who the other lady was. The lady
replied that in the neighbourhood of that island there
18
138
MAI^IMlKHALAI
was another called Ratnadvipa. ‘ There on the high peak
of the hill Samantakuta there are the footprints of the
Buddha. Having offered worship at the footprints I
came to this island long ago. Since then I have re-
mained here keeping guard over this dharma-sez.t”
under the orders of Indra. My name is Tiva-Tilakai
(Dvipa Tilaka). People following the Dharma of the
Buddha strictly, offering worship to this “ Bpddha-
seat ” will gain knowledge of their previous birth, know-
ing their past as a result cf this worship. Such are
few in this world. It is only those few who are fit to
acquire Dharmapada forsooth. Since by such a
worship you have acquired knowledge of your previous
birth, you must be such a great one. In front of this
seat there is a little pond full of cool water overgrown
with all the variety of water-lily. From that will appear
a never-failing “ begging-bowl” by name Amuda-Surabi
(Amrta Surabhi). The bowl appears every year on the
day (of full moon) in the season of the early sun, in the
month of Rishabha, in the fourteenth asterism, the day
in which the Buddha himself was born. That day this
year is to-day and the hour is just now. That Bowl, I
ween, will come into your hand. Food put into it
will'be inexhaustible. You will learn all about it from
Aravana Adigal, who lives in your own native city.’
Manimekhalai on hearing this, making her obeisance to
the Buddha-seat, went along with Tiva-Tilakai, and,
circumambulating the pond, stood in front of it. The
bowl emerged from the water, and turning round to the
right reached the hands of Manimekhalai. Manimekha-
lai felt delighted beyond measure and uttere^J the follow-
ing chant in praise of the Buddha : —
‘ Hail ! holy feet of the Hero ! that subdued Cupid,
‘ Hail ! hofy feet of Him^! who destroyed the evil path,
BOOK XI
139
‘ Hail ! holy feet of the Great One ! labouring to set others
in the path of Dharnia,
‘ Hail ! holy feet of the Perfectly Wise ! who gives to others
the eye of wisdom,
‘ Hail ! holy feet of Him ! whose ears are deaf to evil words,
‘ Hail ! holy feet of Him ! whose tongue never uttered other
than truth,
‘ Hail ! holy feet of Him ! who visited hell itself to destroy
, sufferings there,
‘ Hail ! holy feet of Him ! that destroyed the sorrows of
those of the Nag? world.’
‘ To praise you is beyond the power of my tongue ; to
bow at your feet is alone possible for my body.’ To
Manimekhalai, in this attitude of prayer Tiva-Tilakai
expounded the sufferings of hunger and the merit
accruing to those that enabled creatures to appease
hunger. ‘ Hunger,’ she told Manimekhalai, ‘ will des-
troy good birth, will kill nobility, will cut off the hold
that learning has upon the learned people as the great
support of life, will deprive people of all feeling of
shame, will spoil qualities that are beautiful, will make
people stand at the door of others with their wives.
Such indeed is the nature of the sinful craving hunger.’
To praise those who destroyed it in words is beyond ^e
power of my tongue. She illustrated this by “ the
following incident in the life of Visvamitra. Owirf^ to
failure of rain and consequently of crops, Visvamitra was
stricken with hunger. To satisfy that he wandered
here, there and everywhere, and got nothing that he
could eat. Stricken beyond endurance, he made up his
mind to eat the flesh of a dog, some of which was avail-
able. Bef»re eating it however, he made the usual
offerings to the Gods beginning with Indra (Vaisva-
deva). Indra coming to know of it ordered an
abundance of rain, and thus r&moved famine that led to
140
MANIMEKHALAI
this baleful consequence. Tiva-Tilakai said : ‘You may
have heard the story already. Food that is given to
those who can afford to provide it for themselves is
charity sold. Food provided to allay the hunger of
those that cannot otherwise satisfy it is true charity, and
all right kind of life in this world comes to such people.
Among those that live in this world those that give food
are those that give life. Therefore go forward and give
to those that are hungry that which will destroy hunger.’
Manimekhalai, having heardThis, said in reply : ‘ In my
former life, my husband died of a cobra, whose sight
brings death. I ascended the funeral pyre with him and
while burning, I bethought myself of the food that I
gave to a Buddhist Bikshu, Sadhu Sakkara. As a result
of that good thought at the moment of my death, this
hunger-relieving bowl has come into my hands, I believe.
Like a mother’s breast which at the sight of the face of
her hungry child begins yielding milk, I wish to see this
bowl in my hand provide a supply of food inexhaustible
at sight of those who are oppressed with hunger, and
wander about in dripping rain or scorching sun indiffer.
ently in search of something to appease it.’ After a
litjle while Tiva-Tilakai gave leave to Manimekhalai to
retuin to Puhar with the bowl. Manimekhalai, after
a profound obeisance to her and circumambulating the
Buddha-seat again, thought of the mantra which gave
her the power to fly, and flew through the air. She
returned ito Kaveripattinam and meeting her mother and
companion told them of her previous birth to their
wonderment; taking them along with her she went to
see the holy sage Aravana Adigal, telling them on the
way that the bowl in her hand was the inexhaustible
food-supplying one which once belonged to Aputra, and
that the only' way for th^m to attain good life on this
BOOK XII
141
earth was by placing themselves under the beneficent
guidance of Aravana Adigal.
BOOK XII
Manimekhalai set out with her mother and her
companion, and reached ultimately where Aravana
Adigal was. There she met the venerable monk, his
hair all grey, his body loose with age, while the tongue
showed no signs of trembling, accustomed as he was,
through a long series of years, to teaching. She went
round him three times and made her obeisance. She
then related all that happened to her ever since she
went into the flower-garden adjacent to the city till her
return, and concluded that she was directed by the
Goddess Manimekhala to learn from him more about the
previous life of her mother and her companion. She
also reported that she received a similar direction from
Tiva-Tilakai regarding the history of Aputra. Aravana
Adigal evinced great pleasure at hearing this, and began
immediately to relate the story of Madhavi and
Sutamati : — ‘ On one occasion 1 visited the Pada-
Pangaya Malai (Grdhrakuta), and on my return met
Durjaya Raja in a grove. To my enquiry whether hp
and his queens were well, he told me, in great sorrow,
that one of them Virai died by going unguarded in
front of a newly captured elephant as a result of drink,
and that her sister having heard of this got up the
terrace of the palace and died by throwing herself from
it. I consoled him by saying that this was the result
ot previous and sorrow would be useless.’
Addressing ihe two, he said. ‘ You two have come into
the world again like actors in a new disguise.’ Turning
to Manimekhalai he said ; ‘ At this time dharma is
diminished in the world and sitiful action has been on
142
MAljIIMEKHALAt
the rise. But believing there is still the possibility of
the existence of some slight tendency to dharma^ I have
not relaxed in my efforts in teaching it. That dharma,
people in this world do not know. But within the circuit
of this universe, the devas understand it and at their
request the Deva will come down again to this world from
the Tushita Heaven in the year i6i6. Then everyone
in this world will feel impelled to practise the doctrine
of mercy.’ ‘When the “sun of Buddha” appears,
the moon and the sun will Shine without interruption,
asterisms that mark the day will move in their orbits
without stopping, rains will never fail, earth will yield,
abundance, living beings will not experience evil, th^
wind will blow in the right direction, prosperity wili-
attend all directions of the compass, the great sea will
give good things in plenty, cows will of themselves yield
pailfuls of milk, birds eating plenty will not have to go
out in search of prey, beasts and men will give up even
their natural enmity, fearsome beings and demons will
cease to molest, human beings with defective organs
will not come to birth. Those that should be born then
and have the good fortune to hear the dharma from Him
v\yll cease to be born again. Therefore it is that birth
aftdt birth, I have made it my business to praise
constantly the feet of My Lord, who acquired the know-
ledge at the root of the Bodhi tree.’ ‘ Further than this,
Manimekhalai ! ’ he said, ‘ you have to do certain things
in this city. It is only after that that your mind will reach
the* proper stage for receiving the dharma that I might
teach. These two are born with you because of the
merit they acquired by worshipping the Buddha-feet at
Grdhrakuta. In your company they will get rid of the
results of all their previous action and attain the state of
Nirvana, You have obtained possession of the “ elixir
BOOK xin
143
of life Do go forward and destroy the hunger of all
living beings by means of it. There is only one act of
charity, whether it be to the Gods or to human
beings, and, that is, relief of suffering from hunger.’
Manimekhalai assented.
BOOK XIII
The ^age, Aravana Adiga|, then continued giving the
history of Aputra in the following words : —
‘ There lived in Varanasi a Brahman teaching the
Veda, known by the name of Abhanjika, with his wife
Sali. Having fallen away from conduct expected of her
high station, she wished to get rid of her sin by bathing
in the sea at Kumari (Cape Comorin) notwithstanding
the fact that she was enceinte. (In this condition a holy
bath at sea is prohibited according to Bramanical notions.)
In the course of her journey, she gave birth to a boy
child about a march from Korkai, one of the capitals of
the Pandyas, and, leaving it behind without pity in a
sequestered plantain garden, she went her way. Hearing
the weeping of the baby, a cow which was gra2ing not
far off came near and, licking the child, gave it milk
and kept with it for seven days, protecting it fror©
harm. A traveller from Vayanangodu came that '#ay
along with his wife. Hearing the baby weeping, ‘he
approached, with his wife, the place wherefrom the sound
came. This Brahman Ilambhuti, taking pity on the for-
lorn baby, told his wife that it could not be the child of
a cow, and, regarding it as his own, congratulated his
wife and himself that after all they had been blessed with
a baby. Returning to his village, he gave the boy the
education worthy of a Brahman child, and, after he had
attained to the age of receiving the Brahmanical thread,
he put him through the further course of education
144
maistimSkhalai
suitable to a Brahman youth. At this stage another Brah-
man of the village celebrated a great sacrifice. The boy
entering the sacrificial ground discovered a cow, ready
decorated for the sacrifice, in distress. He made up his
mind immediately to steal the cow overnight and walk
away with it unobserved. He loitered about the place
and when night had advanced, he released the cow, and
taking hold of it, walked away from the localityo The
Brahmans discovered soon after that the cow was missing,
and came upon the young man with the cow in the course
of their search. Taking hold of the cow, they began
beating the young fellow for having stolen it. Seeing
her saviour oppressed in this fashion, the cow attacked
the priest who was beating the boy, and ran into the
woods after severely wounding him. Aputra accosted
his oppressors, and requested them to listen to what he
had to say, ‘ Feeding on the grass that grows on the
village common, cows feed all people the world over from
birth onwards. With a creature so kind-hearted, what
cause could there be for anger? ’ They said to him that
he was talking contemptuously of sacrifices without un-
derstanding the prescribed path of the Veda, which it is
c^ear he did not know. Hence it is but proper, they said
tha4 he was called ‘ Cow’s son ’ (Aputran). The youth
retflrted that ‘ Rishi Achala was the son of a cow, Srngi
was the son of a deer, Rishi Vrnchi was the son of a tiger,
and Kesakambala, the revered of the wise, was the son
of a fox^ Are these not Rishis accepted of your tribe ?
If io, as -you will admit it is so, is there much that is con-
temptible in being born of a cow?’ On hearing this one
among the Brahmans said that he knew the, actual birth
and parentage of the boy, and related the story of how he
was born of Sali, the Brahman woman of Benares, as he
had heard it from herself. The Brahman said that he
BOOK XIV
14S
did not care hitherto to speak about this, as it was no use
doing it. It is now clear that by his conduct he justified
the sinistral character of his birth. To this the boy
retorted again by pointing out that both Vasishta and
Agastya were born of the heavently courtesan Tilottama.
‘ If so why talk of my mother Sali, ’ making the innuendo
that Sali was an alternative name of Arundhati, the model
of chas,tity ? But this dispute had its effect, however,
in that his foster-father Bhuti cast him out as of unclean
birth, and as it came noised abroad that he stole the
sacrificial cow, he no more got alms in Brahman villages.
Finding himself at the end of his resources, he came to
Southern Madura, and made the front yard of the temple of
the Goddess of Learning there, his abode. Therefromhe
used to go daily on begging rounds and returning with
what he got, distributed it among the blind, the deaf, the
maimed, and those who had no one to fall back upon, and
even those that were oppressed with illness. Calling
upon all these and feeding them first, he took for his por-
tion what was actually left over. When he had done
this, he went to sleep with his begging-bowl as his pillow
and thus spent many years.
BOOK XIV , •
While he was thus leading his life uneventfully^ on
one occasion some people approached him at dead of
night while he was asleep, and asked him some food to
satisfy their extreme hunger. Not having the peans to
satisfy them, he was in great distress of miiid at* his
inability to be of assistance to the suffering people,
when the ‘ Qoddess of Mind ’ (Sarasvati) appeared before
him, and handed to him a bowl that she had in her hand,
telling him that even if all the country should be stricken
with famine, the bowl would remain inexhaustible. ‘ Give
19 ....
146
MA]$IIMEKHALAI
as much as ever you like, there will be no exhaustion
unless it be of the hands that received it.’ Receiving
the bowl with great joy and gratitude, he offered thanks
to the Goddess, and attended immediately to the wants
of those who were hungry to their satisfaction. There-
after he made it his business to provide food for all
living beings that he could reach so much so that the
yard of the temple where he lived became a conco,urse of
people, animals, birds and other creatures wanting food.
Intimation of this was received by God Indra by the
usual quiver visible in the white carpet, on which was
placed this throne. The God appeared before Aputra
immediately, in the shape of an old Brahman doubled up
with age, to give him what boon he wanted. The old
man told him that he was no other than Indra, and that
he came there to give him a boon that he might ask, as
he greatly appreciated the merit of the great gift of food
that he was making from day to day. On hearing this,
Aputra laughed, till his sides ached, in derision, and
addressed Indra in the following words : — ‘ People that
practise Dharma, people that take care of others and
protect them from harm, people that practise penance,
people that do deeds without attachment, these do not
constitute the heaven of the Devas. Oh valiant Lord of
the kingdom of the Devos ! I want nothing of you. I
want in fact nothing more than this solitary bowl which
enables me to satisfy the unquenchable hunger of those
that feel hungry and enjoy the sight of their satisfied
countenances. I wish for nothing more.’ Indra got
wroth at this disappointing attitude of his and vowed
vengeance within himself. Returning to his place, he
sent down an abundance of rain, and made the whole
land of the Pandya kingdom smile with cultivation and
prosperity, se that there, may be no creature wanting
BOOK XIV 147
sustenance. Aputra soon found there was no room for
the exercise of his charity, and, leaving his place, he
went out in search of those that may need his services.
Getting none even after that, he was going about like
one forlorn, when some of those who had recently arrived
from overseas, from the country of Savakam, told him
that in that distant country there was a famine prevalent
at the time owing to the failure of rain and a great
number of the inhabitants had died of famine. He
immediately made up his rrlind to travel to that land with
his bowl in order that he might find an opportunity for
the exercise of his charity. He took ship with this
object along with other passengers. Being overtaken
by a storm, the ship had to unfurl and to make a halt
for a day. The ship set sail again at dead of night in
the belief that all the passengers were in. Aputra, how-
ever, got left out, and being distressed at this great
disappointment to him, he resolved to give up life rather
than live useless in that uninhabited island, the bowl of
miraculous power also being of no service in his
possession. He, therefore, threw the bowl into a pond
with a gomuka (cow’s mouth spout) with a prayer that
it might reappear on the surface of the water one day in
the year. He further wished that if ever any •one
appeared on that occasion who made it his life-woA: to
exercise charity and protect all living beings, the bowl
should pass into his hands. Having done this, he laid
down without food or drink, and thus passod out- of
existence. ‘ As this was taking place,’ Aravaaa A(^gal
said, ‘ I happened to be there and in reply to my enquiry,
he gave me the whole history before giving up life.’
That Aputra took birth again in the land of Savakam from
the cow of the king of the country very much like the
sun which, having risen in the 'East, destroys darkness.
148 MA5riMEKHALAl
and, gives up its light in the West, only to rise again in
the East.
BOOK XV
Aravana Adigal continued to relate the further story
of Aputra. The cow that for seven days from birth
fostered the child Aputra, had taken birth as a result of
its own good deeds at Dhavalamalai in Savakanadu
where a Rishi by name Manmukha was living his austere
life. In its new birth it hSd horns and hoofs of gold,
and had a plentiful yield of milk even before it had
calved, which it made use of for feeding human beings.
Seeing this phenomenal occurrence, the Rishi who under-
stood the past, present and future, declared that the cow
would give birth to a hero from out of a golden egg.
Aputra, till he gave up life in Ma^iipallavam for the
purpose of doing charity to all living creatures, had never
lost thought of the cow that had saved him from death
and brought him up during the first seven days of his
existence, and, as a consequence, he appeared again on
earth, as the Rishi had predicted. He came into exist-
ence like the very Buddha himself on the full moon of
the month of Vaisaka. Though it was not the season of
the Tains, there was a drizzle of holy water as at the
appearance of the Buddha himself. All the holy ones in
the Chakraviila at Puhar struck with wonder at the
appearance of these good omens, and not understanding
the cause thereof, went down to the hall where the
statue on The pillar was accustomed . to giving explan-
ations of such phenomenal occurrences. The statue sure
enough gave them the explanation that the phenomenon
that caused them surprise was due to the appearance df
Aputra in another birth, and directed them to the sage
Aravana for further detaifs of his history. The king, of
BOOK XV
149
Savakam at the time, Bhumichandra by name, had for long
been exercised in mind because he had not the fortune
of an heir. In one of his visits to the Rishi he was
presented with the child that was born of the cow, and
he since then, brought it up as his own. ‘ That boy has
now come of age and he is ruling over the land.’
Addressing Manimekhalai, the sage said: ‘ While the
great rh^er Kaveri flows with water and provides the land
with that much-needed element, living beings suffer for
lack of food for some cafise as yet not understood.
Therefore there is no use that you keep this boon un-
used as if the Gods should keep the vessel containing
the celestial ambrosia, after they had taken their fill, un-
used for others.’ On hearing this Manimekhalai paid
her obeisance to the sage, and assuming the form of a
bhikshuni, and with the bowl in her hand, passed into
the streets. Immediately on seeing her, there gathered
round her a crowd, much like the crowd that had
collected round Yaugandharayana when he assumed the
disgusting disguise of a man suffering from disease, and
entered the streets of Ujjain for the purpose of releasing
Udayana, his master, from the prison into which
Pradhyota the king had thrown him. The people
wondered that this comely damsel who had fouifd a
hiding place in the heart of Udayakumara should ?hus
have made her debut in the royal streets of Puhar with
the begging bowl in her hand. At this moment Manh
mSkhalai declared that the first handful of alms she would
receive should be that die best among the chaste, women
of the locality should offer- to her. Kayasandikai gave
the immediate reply that, among women of chastity who
could compel the clouds to rain, the most excellent one
was Adiraiand that they were then in front of her house
‘ Go into her house and accept* alms from Her first.’ .
150
MAljriMEKHALAI
BOOK XVI
Having said this Kayasandikai explained how Adirai
attained to that eminence in chastity. Adirai’s husband
went by the name Saduvan, and, having taken a fancy for
a courtezan lost all the wealth he had. Being reduced
to poverty in this manner, he was neglected by his own
sweetheart. He then resolved to go to a foreign country
and acquire wealth by trade. He took ship along with
merchants trading overseas, and suffered shipwreck on
the way. Taking hold of a** piece of the broken mast, he
swam till he reached the side of a hill in an island in-
habited by naked Nagas. Some of the other passengers
of the boat similarly escaped, a few of whom returning to
Kaveripattinam itself. These people not knowing what
had happened to him gave it out that all the other
passengers had died of the accident. Concluding from
what she heard that her husband also should have died,
Adirai resolved, with the approval of the citizens, to burn
herself on a funeral pyre. Lighting up the pyre as
usual in the burning ghat, she entered the fire declaring
that she might go to the place that her husband was in,
as a result of his works. Finding that the lighted pyre had
ao effect on her, she was distracted with grief even more
thah before, as she felt that even fire would not burn her,
the'^reat sinner that she was. There came to her a voice
from the air at that time telling her that her husband was
not dead and that he had escaped to the island of the
naked Nagas. The voice assured her that he would not stay
there long and would return with the mercantile fleet of
Chandradatta, the overseas merchant. Adirai returned
home and was constantly doing such good deeds as would
hasten the return of her husband. . Saduvan, on the
contrary, having reached the island, had fallen fast asleep
out of fatigue under the Shade of a tree. Having sighted
BOOZ XVI
151
him, the Nagas approached him and woke him up
gleefully, believing that they would make a good meal of
him. Saduvan, however, having had occasion to cultivate
their language, spoke to them in their own language to
their great surprise. They took him to their leader.
Saduvan found him and his wife in a cavern, much as a
bear and its mate, surrounded by pots for brewing beer
and dripd bones emitting smell of the most offensive
kind. Talking to him for a little while, Saduvan managed
to prevail upon him to the- extent of creating a good
impression. To the enquiry how he came there, Saduvan
narrated what had happened. The leader ordered
immediately that he might be provided with plenty of
meat and drink, and a young woman for his companion.
Pained at the ignorance displayed, Saduvan declined his
kind hospitality. Surprised at this refusal, the Naga
leader enquired angrily whether there was anything that
pleased men more than women and food, and demanded
to know if Saduvan knew of any. ‘ Intoxicating drinks
and the taking of life have been condemned by people
of higher views. The death of those that are born,
and the birth of those that die are really phenomena like
wakefulness and sleep. As those that do good deeds
obtain Heaven, and those that do evil reach Hell;J;he
exalted ones have condemned these as causing evil. • It
would be well if you take note of this.’ The Naga chief-
tain laughed in anger and said contemptuously, ‘ you tell us
that life that leaves the body takes another form and
enters another body. Will you explain howJifegt)es
from one body to another?’ Nothing ruffled by this,
Saduvan replied : ‘ When life is in the body, it experiences
that which occurs ; when life leaves the body, that self-
same body does not experience any feeling even when
it should be set fire to. Therefore you learn that
152
MA5IIMEKHALA1
something that was in the body has left it. Everybody
knows that when one leaves his place, he must needs be
somewhere else. You experience in dreams that life can
travel many leagues leaving the body here. Therefore
you can understand that when life leaves the body here,
it goes into another even at great distances.’ When
Saduvan made this exposition, the habitually angry Naga
fell at the feet of merchant Saduvan and said j ‘ It is
impossible for me to keep life and body together without
meat and beer. Therefore fpach us that good life that is
possible for us.’ Saduvan said in reply : ‘Well said;
you will follow the good path. If people suffering
shipwreck should hereafter come to you alive, give them
protection. Do not kill living creatures for food. Be
satisfied with the flesh of animals that die.’ ‘ We shall
follow with pleasure this path of life which we can.’
Thus saying he presented to Saduvan sandalwood, aloes,
cloths and other spoil of shipwreck that from time to
time they took possession of from those who came to
them like Saduvan. Accepting these and taking ship in
the convoy of merchant Chandradatta, Saduvan returned
to Kaveripattinam and was at the time leading the life of
householder along with his chaste wife. ‘ So it is,’ said
Kayasandikai, ‘ that I asked you to accept alms of her
first-,’ Manimekhalai entered Adirai’s house and stood
silent like a picture undrawn by artist’s hand. Adirai
went round her with words of praise, and offered her alms
that wopld fill her bowl with the wish that the whole
livhig world might no more suffer the pangs of hunger.
BOOK XVII
Having accepted alms from Adirai, as detailed above,
Manimekhalai distributed the food in the bowl freely
like those good peoples that distribute freely of their
BOOK XVII
153
wealth, earned in the way of virtue. However much was
taken out of it, the bowl showed itself inexhaustible and
proved an efficient means of satisfying the hunger of
those that came for its satisfaction. Kayasandikai, who
was observing this, was struck with wonder, and making
her obeisance to Manimekhalai, prayed of her, ‘ Good
mother, be so good as to satisfy the hunger that is un-
quenchable in me. My hunger is so great that all the
food I take, whatever be the quantity, does as little to
give me satisfaction as all the hills of stone brought
and thrown into the sea by the army of monkeys in
constructing the causeway across the sea for Rama, in
whose form Vishnu appeared in the world as a result of
the delusion brought on by the curse of Rishis. Do
have mercy and destroy my hunger.’ Manimekhalai
in response took a handful from the bowl and put it in
her open hands. Kayasandikai, her hunger quenched,
and therefore the consequent suffering, recounted her
history with folded hands : ‘ I come from the north
from the city of Kanchanapura situated in the north of
Sedi in mount Kailasa. With the Vidyadhara, my
husband, I came on an excursion to see the Podiyil Hill ^
in the south. As fates had decreed it, we stopped for^ia
little while on the sands of a wild stream. A BrahAan,
with the thread across his breast and his twisted IB’cks
of hair dangling, wearing his garment of fibre, had gone
to his bath in the cool waters of a tank someway across,
leaving on the sands on a teak leaf a ripe jambu<&% big as’
a palm fruit. I walked along proudly and, not seeing* the
fruit, tripped over it and destroyed it as a result of my
bad deeds. •Vrischika, who returned anxious to take it
for food, saw me thus causing destruction to his fruit,
^ The hill of Pandya kings in Tinnevelli district in the north-west comer
of it in the Western Ghats at the source of the River Tamraparni.
30
154
MAUIMEKHALAI
and addressed me thus : ‘ This Jambu fruit is a divine
one that ripens once in twelve years, and the tree yields
but one such fruit during that long period. That fruit
intended for my food, you have destroyed. May you for-
get, therefore, the mantra by which you are enabled to
travel in the air. Further may you suffer from the
disease ‘ elephant-hunger ’ till I satisfy my hunger by
taking the next fruit that ripens twelve years hence.’
The day he marked for my release from this disease
seems to be this day now thSt you have destroyed that
unquenchable hunger. When this Rishi had departed
in hunger, my husband returned, and, understanding
what had happened, was sore troubled in heart, as I had
become subjected to this great suffering even without
fault of my own. As I could not rise into the air with
him when he wanted me to start, and, as all the fruit and
food that he could bring together would not satisfy my
hunger, he left me with great sorrow, directing me the
while with great kindness to go to this city even after
many days’ journey, a city which in the Tamil land in
Jambudvlpa was a very rich one and where lived many
people who helped those that were helpless. He comes
here every year during the festival of Indra and parts again
with regret counting upon his coming the next year.
No^ you have destroyed my hunger, I make my
obeisance to you, and shall return to my native city in
the north. Here in this city there is a place called
Chakravalakotta inhabited by those hermits who make
the destnSction of suffering their business of life. There
in that place you will find an open resting place, a work
of charity ; it is a habitation for all those^ that suffer
from hunger coming from all places, of those that suffer
from disease and have no one to look after them. Many
others there are who, expecting that there they would
BOOK XVIII
155
get alms, go there and live on others’ charity . Having
said this, Kayasandikai left for the land of the Vidya-
dharas. Manimekhalai, on the contrary, entered the
streets of Puhar, and, walking alone along one side of it,
entered the public rest-house, having circumambulated
it thrice, and performed her obeisance in thought, word
and deed to the goddess of the city, worshipped by those
of the .city and others. Making similar obeisance to ‘ the
statue of the pillar’ she appeared in the hall of the
hungry and the destitute, with the inexhaustible bowl
in her hand, as if pouring rain had come on a wild
region burnt up with the heat of the sun. She called
out to those there to come and receive the food from the
inexhaustible bowl of Aputra, and thenceforward the
hall resounded perpetually with the noise of giving and
taking food.
BOOK XVIII
Chitrapati having heard that her grand-daughter
Manimekhalai had assumed the dress of a nun with the
begging bowl in her hand for begging food, and that
she had entered the common resting place, was beside
herself with anger. Distracted in mind she resolved
somehow to get Manimekhalai back from this life of
hers, and addressed the, dancing women of her caste in
the following words ; ‘ Ever since the death of Kovalan,
Madhavi, my daughter, has given up . life, and entering
the hermitage of. the holy ascetics, has herself, assumed
the form of a nun, a proceeding . which evokes the lau^ter
of our community. We are not the people that bum
ourselves, like chaste wives^ on the pyre of their hus-
bands. We are like the lute of a musician ; when he
should die we pass from his hand to another’s. Our
profession is like that of the honey bee which sucks the
MANIMEKHALAI
J.
huPf-
tou^'^ i’
swe*'
W' V
abe»‘ *•
the ,
yoUl* »l ‘
The '
and, ,, ‘
som^ ,
to £o* 'j '
her H"",
that ‘
talk t
resol'*^^^ I
knovv^' ,
mad CP'''
lovel^r
fort% *
take#-
of K-'*'
thet ''
froin
chaft/'
her ^J
ia tbf b'
bega> 'i”
those#' ‘
puni i--(
I out of the flower and passes on when it is
To assume the garb of a nun, and perform
erities of hermits, is not conduct in keeping
istoms of our caste. I have resolved, there-
ke Manimekhalai change her ascetic dress,
egging bowl over to beggars, and see her
n the car of prince Udayakumara, who has
ime been deeply in love with her. If I should
/ out this resolution of mine, let me share the
se who have fallerkfrom our caste by having
nt bricks piled upon my head, and taken
dancing hall and cast out so as not to have
the houses of dancing women ever after.’
d this, she went at the head of a few of her com-
) the palace of the prince. Saluting him in
and, with words of praise due from those of
, she hinted to him how worthy of his affec-
nekhalai was, and conveyed to him the inform-
she had betaken herself. to the travellers’ hall
The prince on his side, who had never lost
f her, described how unhappy he had been
he saw Maijimekhalai in the crystal hall and
ir for a picture, and ended by saying that over-
re appeared before him a golden-coloured
ho pointing out to him what was proper con-
jnished him to give up thoughts of Manimekha-
:ould not understand whether it was a goddess
inected with a goddess. Chitrapati smiled at
Dity of the prince, and asked him whether he
vare that the gods themselves were not free
attractions even of illicit love, citing as ex-
dra’s love to Ahalya and of Agni’s to the
he seven Rishis. She pointed the moral by
a that the guardianship of girlhood, the care-
BOOK XVIII
15 ?
ful watch in married life, the complete abstinence from
seeing or being seen after the death of one’s husband, and,
overall these, the great guard that the feeling of chastity
actually keeps over women who do not know of guards
other than their own virtue, is not conduct imposed upon
women of our caste. It was our profession to enter public
halls, and the presence of all, to exhibit our skill in dancing
and mi^^ic, and be seen by all in all the charms of our beauty.
That is not all, ourfunction is to be so attractive as to get
into the minds of everybody that sees us, and thus
enslave their minds, and remain with them so long as
they proved profitable, giving them up the moment they
ceased to be. She concluded by enquiring whether it
was not the duty of kings to bind such to their caste custom
and to save them from the evil reputation that is certain
from the conduct of both her daughter and grand-daughter.
Thus instigated, the prince drove down to the travellers’
hall, and seeing Manimekhalai there distributing food,
approached her making the enquiry what her purpose
was in assuming the form of an ascetic. Thinking that
it was due to him that she should make her obeisance,
the more so as he was her husband in the previous birth,
she made a profound obeisance, and told him, ‘birth,
growth and decay, disease ending in death; thesf are
the sufferings of the human body. Understanding J;his,
I have taken it upon myself to do permanent acts of
charity in this life. Saying this, she wanted to get
away from him and assume another form. Shq entered
the temple of Champapati, and reciting the iacanttftion
which the Goddess Manimekhala had taught her, she
assumed th^ form of Kayasandikai, and came out of the
temple with the begging bowl in her hand. The prince
entered the temple and enquired of the goddess
where Manimekhalai was in hiding after- handing her
158
MANIMEKHALAI
begging bowl to Kayasandikai. He vowed that if the
goddess would not let him know, he would lie there
hungry till she should grant the boon. So saying he
touched the feet of the goddess in token of his un-
swerving resolution.
BOOK XIX
While prince Udayakumara was thus making hjs vow,
a being of the spirit- world inhabiting one of the pictures on
the wall warned him, ‘ you tare thoughtless in making
your vow before the goddess. It will come to nothing.’
The prince was taken aback by the miraculous voice,
and, somewhat shaken in his resolution, said, ‘ There is
something divine in the spiritual being that exhorted me
to forget Manimekhalai. The bowl that she carries in
her hand with an inexhaustible supply of food is a miracle
that causes me great surprise ; that this painting should
talk to me in this manner is still more surprising.’ He
resolved that he would find out the truth of all this after
knowing the truth about Manimekhalai. Having thus
made up his mind, and, still beside himself with his
love for her, he returned to his palace.
^ Manimekhalai, on the contrary, thought that in her
fornj^ she was exposed to the efforts of the prince to
take* possession of her, and resolved to assume the form
of Kayasandikai. She took the miraculous bowl from
the temple of Champapati as Kayasandikai, and went
from plage to place wherever she thought there was the
chaace ofimeeting people in hunger. In the course of
her wanderings, she went one day to the chief prison
in. the city, and, entering the well-guarded penitentiary,
began with great kindness and pleasing words, to feed
those who were suffering from hunger while undergoing
punishment. The guardsmen were struck with wonder
BOOK XIX
159
that she was able to feed so many from out of one vessel
that she carried in her hand, and reported the miraculous
occurrence to the king. With his queen Sirtti, a
descendant of Mahabali who ages long gone by, gifted,
with pouring of water, the whole earth and all that was
his, to Vishnu, when he appeared as a dwarf and sought
a boon of him, and rising sky high, measured the whole
earth in one stride, the king was on a visit of pleasure
to the royal garden, and among them he found a peacock
with its mate moving about in the company of a milk
white swan. He pointed out the three to the queen
likening them to Krishna, his brother and sister in their
characteristic dance. In another place similarly he saw
a tall bamboo standing alongside of a white Kadambu^
which again seemed to him like Krishna and his brother
standing. Having thus spent a considerable time, he
retired to a garden house where, like Indra himself, he
was resting for a while with his queen. This house
was a work of art in which had been lavished ‘ the skill
of the Tamil Artisan, along with those of the jewellers
of Magadha, of the smiths of Mahratta, of the black-
smiths of Avan ti, and of the carpenters ofYavana’.
The structure was constructed with pillars of corai,
with capitals of varied jewels, with pendants of v^ite
pearl and a beautifully worked canopy of gold. Mere
the head of the prison-guard entered with permission
and, performing due obeisance from a distance,
addressed him: ‘May your Majesty live loi^! The
Majesty of the monarch of the strong arm, Mavaniillt,
in whose behalf the white umbrellas of his enemies were
taken as spsils of victory by his younger brother at
Kariyaru ; enemies who, stimulated by a desire to get
possession of more of the earth, started from Vanji, pre-
pared for an aggressive war, takfng with them broad eared
160
MANIMEKHALAI
elephants, cars, and horses and a vast array of valiant
warriors. The army marched with the banners of the
bow and the twin fish floating in the air till they were
defeated and dispersed by the young prince, your brother.
May our great king, our emperor, prosper. A woman
new to the city who used to wander about consumed
with the disease, “elephant-hunger” has entered the
prison-house, and, praising your Majesty’s good - name,
feeds from a begging bowl which she carries in her hand,
all persons to their uttermost satisfaction. May it
please your Majesty, she is still there.’ The king ordered
her being fetched, when she appeared with the salutation
that the great king’s mercy may prosper. The king
desired to know who she was and what sort of a beg-
ging bowl it was that she carried in her hand. Mani-
mekhalai replied : ‘ I am the daughter of a Vidya-
dhara and have been wandering in the city in disguise.
May the rains never fail, may the earth not cease in
prosperity, may the great king know no evil. This
begging bowl was given to me by a goddess in the
travellers’ hall of the city. This had the power to cure
even the disease “elephant-hunger” and is an unfailing
IMe-giver to human beings.’ ‘What can I do for you,
good lady,’ asked the king. ‘ May the king live long,’ she
replifed, ‘only destroy the prison-house, and erect there,
in its stead, with kindness of heart, tenements useful for
those that follow the path of Dharma' The king ordered
accordingly.
BOOK XX
By order of the king, and through the kindness of the
beautiful damsel, Manimekhalai, what was a cruel house
of punishment was transformed into a house of charity.
Like those of evil deeds, "who, after undergoing suffer-
BOOK XX
161
ings due, take their birth where the good life is possible,
the premises of the State prison were now occupied by
a shrine for the teacher of the truth, residential rooms for
those that practise charity, halls for cooking and dining,
provided with everything required for living and security.
Uoa]^ akumara heard of all that took place resulting in
this transformation. He still held to his resolution to
take pQssession of Manimekhalai when she should be
out of the hall of guests, and then learn from her direct-
ly the secret of her art and vv^hatever of wisdom she may
have to impart to him while she should be in his chariot.
With his mind thus set, in spite of the fact that the wise
might disapprove and the king might get angry, he
reached the guests house where Manimekhalai used to
be^ distributing food. About that time, the Vidy^hara
Kanchana, husband of Kayasandikai noted that the day
of redemption for his wife had already arrived, and,
seeing that his wife did not yet return to him, he started
in search of her. Having looked in vain for her in all
the likely places of the vast city, he at last found her in
the act of feeding those that were hungry. He approach-
ed her, and assuming the familiarity of the husband to
the wife, asked with a sense of grateful relief whether the
one vessel from which she was providing food •for
such a vast number was a miraculous bowl that sdme
God, out of pity for her, presented to her to get rid of
her great suffering. Even though she was in the guise
of Kayasandikai, Manimekhalai, without exhibiting any
affectionate response that he expected, passed on to
where Udayakumara was, and, pointing to him a woman of
extreme old age, who apparently was a woman of beauty
in her days, exhorted him that that was the inevitable con-
dition all beautiful women should come to ultimately.
This human body, however beattifully it may be made
21 ^ .
162
MAl^IMEKHALAI
by the form of the flesh, by dress, jewellery, flowers and
unguents, it is all a delusion created by people of old.
Kanchana seeing the intimacy of her attitude and con-
versation to Udayakumara took it that she was in love
with the prince and had therefore abandoned him. Angry
that Udayakumara should have been the cause of her
estrangement, and resolving to make sure, he entered the
hall, like a poisonous cobra its hole. Udayakumarjikonthe
contrary, his affection for Manimekhalai not abated by
all that was said, did not give up his pursuit of love to
her, feeling certain that it was she that had assumed the
form of Kayasandikai and had caused misunderstand-
ing in the Vidyadhara Kanchana. He resolved there-
fore to return to the hall at dead of night to probe more
into the matter and assure himself whether he was
right. Still overborne with his love to her and being
guided by that feeling alone to the neglect of all other
cautious considerations, he left his palace at dead of
night, like a tiger going out for its prey and entered the
hall as he projected. The Vidyadhara who was there
already, feeling sure that the prince had come there to
visit his wife Kayasandikai secretly, like an angry cobra
aoming out to attack with outspread hood, drew his
sw6rd and cut the prince in two. Having done this, he
ruslied up to Kayasandikai to rise up into the air with
her when the statuette on the pillar exclaimed ; ‘Vid-
yadhara, approach not, approach not. She is Manime-
khalai in disuise as Kayasandikai. Listen to what had
happened to the latter. Having got rid of her unquen-
chable hunger, on rising up in the air towards her home,
not knowing the fact that those that go by ^ the air avoid
crossing over that part of the Vindhyas where is the
shrine of the Goddess Vindhyavasini, she floated across
over the shrine. Goddess Durga, angry that this insult
BOOK XXI
163
should have been offered to her, drew her in by the
shadow and made a meal of her as has always been usual.
Be not vexed with what you have done to this prince.
It is his past deeds that have resulted in this. Yet you
must bear the consequences of the evil deed although
done in ignorance- ’ Sad at heart at the turn that events
took, Kanchana flew across the air homewards towards
Kailasa.
BOOK XXI
Manimekhalai who was lying asleep in the front hall
of Champapati’s temple to the west, woke up in fear, and
knowing what the Vidyadhara did, what befell the prince
and what the divine statuette had said, gave up her
disguise and assumed her real form. ‘ When in our
previous birth, you died of the cobra Dhrishti Viska, I
entered the fire along with you ; when last I saw you in
the pleasure garden in this city, goddess Manimekhala
carried me away to Manipallavam, seeing that my mind
was attracted to you. There by means of the miraculous
Buddha-seat at Manipallavam the goddess gave me
knowledge of our previous births and relationship. As
I understood your relationship to me, I cherishe'3
affection for you even in this life. I wished to exiiort
you from the evils of life by pointing out the inevitable
cycle of births and deaths, and of the consequences of
good and bad deeds. I assumed the form of Kayasandi-
kai 'to keep you from doing evil. My evil fate ft is that
you should have thus fallen by the sword of tfie Vidya-
dhara.’ So saying she approached the dead body of
the prince. ’The statuette on the pillar again forbade
her from approaching and told her : ‘ It is not in the
previous life alone that you both were husband and wife.
Such has been your relationship for innumerable lives
I
164
MAljllMfeKHALAI
before. You have the knowledge to get rid of this cycle
of birth and death. Be not vexed with this occurrence
and give yourself up to sorrow for his death.’ Manime-
khalai, somewhat encouraged by the words of the god,
enquired if that was the god that people used to say was
there in the hall, who told everybody the truth of things.
‘ If that be you, I make reverence unto you. If you do
know, as I take it you do, what it was that brought about
the death of my husband by the poisonous cobra in the
previous birth and the swor<f of the Vidyadharain this,
pray let me know what it was.’ The god replied:
‘ When on the banks of the river Kayamkarai both you
and your husband Rahula entertained the Rishi Bhrama-
dharma who was on his round of preaching wisdom to
people and who made it a point of his teaching to convey
information regarding the coming of the Buddha, both
of you together invited the Riski for breakfast. Your
husband gave orders to the cook to get breakfast ready
early the next morning. The cook delayed somewhat
owing to circumstances beyond his control and in fear of
consequences slipped and fell, dropping the cooking
vessel itself. Even in spite of his good intentions your
Ivusband cut him in two for the fault of having delayed
the breakfast. It is as a direct consequence of this that
Udayakumara suffered death in the previous birth and
in this, in the manner in which it occurred. Be sure that
the consequences of a man’s deeds are inevitable.
Those that say “ god will protect you from the evil conse-
quences of your deeds”, are people that speak in
ignorance. Even though your husband did the cruel
deed in anxiety to do good, the result of the evil deed
has not left him. When the consequences of the evil
deed are in operation, it may still be possible to do good
that will save one in the next life. The king hearing
BOOK XXI
165
of the death of the prince from the Rishis resident in
Chakravalakotta will throw you into prison, and the
crowned queen knowing this will take you out of the
prison and keep you under her control. The prayer of
your mother Madhavi and the intercession of the sage
Aravana Adigal will ultimately gain for you release.
After that you will reach Savaham, and there meeting
its ruler, Aputra, will come back to Manipallavam.
Aputra will learn there, by the sight of the Buddha-seat,
his anterior history from T-Iva-Tilakai, and will return
to his country. You will then assume the guise of a
mendicant and go to the city of Vanji to learn from
teachers of various religious persuasions their teaching.
You may hold to the truth firmly that the result of
deeds is inevitable and those that die must necessarily
be born again. So far is your story. If you wish to
know mine, I am of the gods. My name is Tuvadikan,
Maya, the architect has carved in this old pillar a form
exactly like mine. I never go out of it.’ Manimekhalai
then begged him to tell her her further history carrying
it forward to her death. The god told her : ‘You
will come to learn at Vanji that the city of Kanchi
suffered from famine owing to failure of rain, and that
your mother Madhavi, her companion Sutamati, ‘and
the teacher Aravana Adigal were all three gon8 to
that city and were awaiting your arrival. You would
then proceed to Kanchi and provide the starving
people with food and save them from dealdi. You
would perform similarly many, another miracle in that
city. Ultimately you will let Aravana Adigal know all
Ihat you have heard from the teachers of religion at Vanji.
He will then teach you what tapas really is and dharma^
and what the nature of the consequential phenomena are.
He would also point out to you how to g*et rid of the
166
MAljriMSKHALAI
consequences of action. By these means he would
enlighten you to get rid of the darkness of evil and of
the attainment of the permanent state of NirvmM. -Thus
teaching the dharma, he would continue to live with
immeasurable riddhi (miraculous power) till the Buddha
should appear oh earth. Passing through many lives, he
would always be teaching the dharma. As a result of his
teaching, you will follow the good path through tfee rest
of your life doing many good deeds. After death, here
at Kanchi, you will be born itiany times again as a man in
Uttara (North) Magadha. In each one of these births, you
will invariably follow the path of dharma, and, attaining
to the position of the first disciple of the Buddha, reach
Nirvana ultimately. Further you may note that as a
result of good conduct and acts of charity of one of your
ancestors. Goddess Manimekhala saved him from immi-
nent death in the sea. That self-same goddess, because
of the merit that you acquired by feeding ih.^ Ris hi
Sadusakkaran, carried you away from the pleasure garden
to the island of Manipallavam, and made it possible for
you to see the Buddha-seat.’ Having heard all this
Manimekhalai attained to peace of mind, and the day
bl'oke in all its glorious effulgence.
' BOOK XXII
The day having dawned early worshippers at the
temple of Champapati found the prince there cut in two,
andpinfoftned the holy ones in residence at the Chakra-
valakbttam. They naturally enquired of Mapimekhalai if
she knew anything about it, and she recounted all that
had taken place. Leaving her and the remains of the
prince hidden in a place apart, they went to the palace
and sent word to the king of their arrival. Obtaining
audience, one of them, affer the usual salutation, said, ‘ It
BOOK XXII
167
is not at this time alone that such sad occurrences have
happened. Many have suffered cruel death due to them
to the impulses of guilty love to women of
inexorable chastity and constancy. By way of illustra-
tion, we may mention one or two. When Parasurama
had taken it upon himself to uproot the race of the
Kshatriyas, Goddess Durga warned Kantan, the ruling
Chola at the time, that he should not go to war against
him. As a result of the warning, the king wished to go
away from the capital anci live in hiding till the danger
should have passed. He, therefore, looked out for some
one who could be entrusted with the administration during
his absence and who would not be in the same danger to
which he was actually exposed. Fixing upon his
natural son Kakandan, the son of a courtesan, but withal
a very valiant prince, he entrusted him with the adminis-
tration. He exhorted him to keep watch over the city
till he should himself return with the permission of Rishi
Agastya. “ Since you are not legitimately entitled to
rule as a Chola, Parasurama will not go to war with you,
and, since this city has been placed under your rule in
this emergency, the city shall hereafter go by the name
Kakandi.” Having thus enjoined it upon Kakandas,
Kantan assumed a disguise and went out of the city.
Kakandan carried out the instructions of his fatherland
was ruling, from the city, the Chola kingdom. The
younger of his two sons was struck with the attractiveness
of a Brahman woman Marudi as she was retumuig alone
from her bath in the river Kaveri. He made •overtures
of love to her when she was in that unguarded condition.
Disconcerted by this unsuspected molestation, she cried
out that “ in this world chaste wives that could command
even the rains to come, would not enter the hearts of
others. Somehow to-day, my fwmhas found entry in the
168
MAl^IMEKHALAI
heart of this young man. I have, therefore, become unfit
to do the service of preserving the three kinds of fii-e for
my husband the Brahman. What is it that I have done to
come to this.’’ So saying, without returning to her house
as usual, she walked up the street to the square where
was set the statue of the guardian-deity of the city. She
then addressed the deity : “ I am not aware of having at
any time done anything undutiful to my husband.
Even so, how could I so easily get into the heart of
another ? I am not aware ofi, any error on my part that
could have brought me to this. I have heard from the
wise that you will bind with your rope those of evil deeds,
even though they should do them secretly, and, destroy-
ing them, would eat them up. Have you become false
to your charge as you do not appear to be doing that act
of justice now ? ” So saying, she wept aloud at the foot of
the statue of the guardian-deity. The deity appeared to
her and said: “You have not understood properly the
meaning of that particular passage of the truthful bard,'
which says that the clouds will rain at command
of her who, even though failing to worship God, would
take up her day’s duties only after worshipping her
husband. You are accustomed in life to hear false
stories, and have exhibited a turn for the enjoyment of
the ludicrous. Further your devotion to Gods and their
worship had in it a desire to hear music, to see dances
and otherwise enjoy the festivities. Therefore it is the
chaste wife that you are, you have not the power to
commandr clouds to rain, and therefore it is that you have
failed to burn the hearts of those who cherish evil
thoughts of you. If you will but give 4.p the light-
hearted enjoyment of the things cited above, you will
TiruvaUuvar, the author ol the Tamil Kural referring to verse ^5.
BOOK XXII
169
still command the respect due to the chaste wife and her
privileges. Since you are not to blame for this act of the
prince^ my rope will not bind you, and my weapons will
not punish you as in the case of women that go the way
of their hearts. The law allows seven days’ time for
the king to punish an offender. Before that limit of
time, if he should fail to do so, then it would be my turn
to inflict the punishment. You may rest assured that
within the seven days’ limit king Kakanda hearing of
what had happened will deq^pitate the prince.’ As the
deity declared the prince was cut into two by the king
himself when he had heard of the prince’s misdeed
towards the Brahman woman. That is not all. There
was a merchant in good old days in the city, a man of
beauty and of wealth, by name Dharmadatta. He had a
cousin, the daughter of his maternal uncle, by name
Visakai, a damsel of great beauty. Being cousins they
cherished great affection for each other, and conducted
themselves as becoming a pair of very affectionate young
people. It somehow got abroad in the city that they
intended to marry each other in the gandharva form,
that is, enter into a love marriage, without the procras-
tinating ceremonies and the obstructive formalities of ^
regular marriage. This talk of the town reached ^the
ears of Visakai. Feeling pained at the injustice, .she
went u*p to the guests’ hall before ‘ the statue on the
pillar ’ and demanded the statue may get her rid of
this calumny. The deity of the statuette announced to
the public that she was clear of any guilt, (^ithei* of
intention or of act, and the city was apparently satisfied.
She, however, was not, and thought within herself that
but for this deity of the statuette the people would still
have cherished the false notion regarding her. She
therefore resolved, ‘ I shall marjy my cousin in my next
170
MAISIIMEKHALAI
birth, but continue to live all my life in this, unmarried.’
Communicating this resolution of hers to her mother, she
entered the cloister of virgins. Love-lorn Dharmadatta
praised ‘ the statue of the pillar ’ for thus saving him from
an evil reputation and removed himself from Kaveri-
pattinam, and went to Madura. Having there made up
his mind not to marry anybody other than Visakai, he
kept the vow and continued a prosperous merchant
acquiring great wealth. He rose up to the dignity of
receiving titles and insignfa from the monarch thus
becoming a titled dignitary of sixty years. A Brahman
pointed out to him, that, being unmarried and therefore
without a son, all his good deeds and great wealth would
be of no avail, to gain him Heaven. ‘ It is time that you
returned to your own native city and did something to
provide for your future.’ Having heard of his return to
Kaveripattinam, Visakai gave up the cloister and coming
up to him, told him that he had grown up to be sixty,
and her hair had begun to turn gray. Their beauty was
all gone, and her love itself had cooled. ‘ I keep to my
resolve not to marry in this life, but shall certainly be
your wife in the next. Youth does not last, beauty does
jjot last, growing great in wealth does not last either ;
nor.^0 children give Heaven. The only thing that goes
with us is the great good that we can do in this life.’ So
saying, she exhorted him to utilize his wealth in acts of
charity. Dharmadatta with the approval of Visakai
thereafter applied his wealth to acts of beneficence.
when Visakai was returning with others through the
royal streets of Puhar after her visit to the guests’ hall,
the elder of the two princes smitten with |j.er charming
looks wished to make her his own. In order to do this
effectively and publicly he raised his hand up to his head
to take out a^arland of flowers that he was wearing round
BOOK XXII
m
his hair to drop it on her neck and thus publicly commit
her as it were. By the ineffable chastity of Visakai, how-
ever, .the hands that he raised would not come down
again. Having heard of this, the father was very angry
at this misconduct of his son, and punished him in the
same manner as he had punished the other. The king
in some surprise pointed out to the sage that he began
by saying that it was not only at this time that such
things took place. ‘If so,’ he said, ‘does such evil conduct
occur at this time. Have the kindness to let me know
if such has come to your notice.’ The sage replied :
‘ In this sea-girt earth, five things have been condemned
by the really wise. Among these, drink, untruth, theft
and murder can be brought under control, but, worst of
all and very difficult to get rid of, was passion. Those
that got rid of passion are rightly taken to have got
rid of the others. Hence it is that really penitent
ones first give up that. O, great king, those that have
not given it up are people who have ensured suffering in
hell. So having heard of the calamitous death of her
lover Kovalan, Madhavi his mistress gave up life, and
entered the cloister of Buddhist hermits. Her daughter
Manimekhalai, at the approach of youth, gave up life gd
the very beginning and going from house to house,, the
small as well as the great, had taken upon herself the»role
of a mendicant nun. She took up her residence in the
public hall of the city. Notwithstanding this manner of
her life, the prince kept following her like a shadow, in-
stigated to that purpose by his extreme, love tocher. * As
he was thus pursuing her, Manimekhalai assumed the form
of the .Vidy^hara woman Kaya&ndikai to get rid of his
importunity. Even in thatiorm.he did not. give her peace,
when Vidyadhara Kanchana, the husband of Kayasandikai
taking her really for his wife and regarding him as an
172
MAlvTlMEKHALAI
importunate corruptor of his wife, cut him in two at dead
of night in the guests’ hall.’ Having heard this the
king, without the slightest expression of sorrow f(jr the
death of his son, issued instructions to the commander-
in-chief, ‘ the Vidyadhara deserves my thanks for having
done to the erring prince what I should have done to him.
The rigid observances of Rishis and the chastity of good
women will have no chance of existence if they, do not
receive efficient protection from the king. Before other
kings get to know that my unfortunate son was guilty of
such an act, coming as I do of the family of him who
drove his car over the body of his son, because of a
neglectful act of his, order the cremation of the dead
body. Let Manimekhalai also be kept in prison for
protection.’ The orders wei'e accordingly carried out.
BOOK XXIII
Under the auspices of the king there lived in the city a
very old woman who had the privilege of instructing the
king, the prince, as well as the ladies of the royal house-
hold in what was good, what was approved of the learned,
and of offering consolation at the occurrence of sad events.
Her name was Vasantavai. She went to the queen and
without letting her give way to sorrow, made the usual
salutations and said:—* Kings met their death ia win-
ning victories, in protecting their subjects and in annexing
the kingdoms of inimically disposed neighbours ; and,
if perchance they died of age without falling in battle
like' warriors, they were given a hero’s death by their
body being laid on a bed of sacrificial grass {Poa
cynosuvoides) and cut in two, as though they fell in
battle. I cannot fetch a tongue to say that monarchs of
this land died a natural death by reaching ripe old age.
To say so w'Ould be to disgrace the dynasty. Without
BOOK xxiir
173
falling in defending his kingdom, without falling in
taking over other’s kingdoms, how can I describe the
way that your son fell by the sword ? Show, therefore,
no sorrow in the presence of the sovereign, your husband.’
Overpowered as the queen was with sorrow, she hid it
in her heart, and appearing as though unaffected, she
resolved to make Manimekhalai pay the penalty for her
having been the cause of her son’s death. She managed
one day to persuade the king that the prison house
was not a suitable place -of residence for the pretty
Manimekhalai. The king in reply said that she
might arrange to keep her anywhere else if she could
keep her in security. The queen undertook to keep her
with herself and thus took charge of her. Having got pos-
session of her in this manner she resolved to make her in-
sane, and to that end fumigated her with poison gas in vain.
Manimekhalai remained clear in spite of the treatment.
The queen set upon her a wild young man to ravish
her and make it public afterwards. Manimekhalai
saved herself from this by transforming herself into
a man at his approach. Understanding that the queen
meant more than actually met his eye, the desparate
young man left the city and went away rather
than expose himself to the danger. Having failed in
these, «he gave it out that Mariimekhalai was ill and* put
her under treatment by confining her in a hot room.
Seeing that this treatment did not affect Manimekhalai
the queen was in great fear that she was attempting to
injure a woman of miraculous power, and protested that
she was led into doing these evil deeds by the maternal
impulses of* sorrow for her late son, and begged that
Manimekhalai might pardon her for her evil intention to
her, as she was beside herself in her bereavement.
Manimekhalai said in reply ‘ when in the previous birth
174
MANIMEKHALAI
my husband, prince Rahula, died of the poison of a
cobra and when I ascended the funeral pyre with him,
where were you all weeping for him? You are #doing
amiss. Do you weep for your son’s body or do you
weep for his life ? If you weep for the body who was it
that ordered it to be burnt? If you weep for the life, it
is impossible for you to know where it has gone. If
you really are sorry for that life, it follows as a.natural
consequence that you should wear yourself out in sorrow
for all living beings. Let that remain. Please under-
stand what it is that brought about the death of your son?
His death by the sword of the Vidyadhara is but the
direct consequence of his having cut his own cook in
two for a slight remissness in the discharge of his duty.
It is this deed of his that brought on his death once by
the look of the poisonous cobra, and again by the sword
of the Vidyadhara ’ ! She then followed it up by telling
the queen of all that had happened ever since she got
into the garden outside the city. She then continued,
‘ All the evil that you attempted to do to me, I was able
to save myself from by the possession of miraculous
power. Therefore give up the useless sorrow to which
you have given way to the extent of doing evil deeds.
Ha\«e you not heard the story of the wife of an artisan,
who* because of misrule in the kingdom and because
her husband gave her up, went away to a distant place
to set herself up to live by hiring herself out for the
enjoymeEt of others indiscriminately. Her own child
whom sh5 had left behind having been brought up by a
Brahman was among her lovers and gave up his life
when he learned of the fact. A hunter who chased a
deer big with young was reduced to painful sorrow when
he saw the young one jump out from the ripped open
entrails of the deer. You have known people who.
BOOK XXIV
175
being drunk, come to certain death by falling upon the
tusks of fighting elephants. Similarly you have seen
the evil fate that overtakes life by falsehood or theft.
Hence it becomes plain that those that wish to live in
this world must give up these vices which bring on
evil consequences only. Otherwise all that we learn is
of no use. To give to those that suffer from poverty,
to feed those that suffer from hunger, to be kind to those
that su&er is the only conduct suitable to those who
wish to lead a good life in ^this world. ’ Thus saying
Manimekhalai poured this water of wisdom into the ear
of the queen extinguishing the fire of sorrow, that, fed
by the fuel of her own heart, was burning up the queen’s
mind. The queen, her mind being clarified by this
good teaching, fell prostrate before Manimekhalai.
Manimekhalai in her turn prostrated before her and
pointed out that which the queen did was not right, as
obeisance from a mother-in-law to the daughter-in-law
was improper, and, what was worse, that from the crown-
ed queen to a subject.
BOOK XXIV
Old Chitrapati, at whose instigation the prince came
to the sad end of falling by the sword of the Vidyadhara,
having heard of what had happened, was in great ajarm
as to consequences. Anxious however to get Manime-
khalai released from the prison, she went to the palace,
and, falling at the feet of the queen said ; ‘ Ever since
the I2I dancing women appeared in this j::ity, •the
suffering to which I had been subjected nbbody could
have experiejiced. That Madhavi should have renounced
life and entered a Buddhist vihara because of the death
of her lover, who paid her wages of love every day ; that
her daughter Manimekhalai vtho , wandered from house
176
MANIMEKHALAI
to house with a begging-bowl in her hand and taken
alms, are unbecoming of the life of a dancing women,
and could provoke only laughter and derision in the
community. Manimekhalai’s presence in the city has
been the cause of destruction to the prince already. But
that is not all. There is another possible calamity that
can befall the city through her. In the delightful part
adjoining the salt pans where many a sand-dune lay
scattered in the pleasant grove, Killi of the high and
brilliant crown one day long ago was taking his pleasure.
To his great surprise, he saw in a sequestered part of it,
fragrant with blossoming flowers, a beauty unparalleled,
all by herself alone. The king did not know who it
was that could come there in that condition, and
forgetting himself, yielded to her charms attacked as he
was with all the five arrows' of Cupid at once.
The season was pleasant, the scene was delightful,
and the young lady enchanting in her beauty. He
yielded himself to her whole-heartedly, and even after
he spent a month with her she never so much as
let him know who she was. At the end of the month,
however, she left him all of a sudden unknown to
him. Disconcerted by her disappearance the victorious
monarch caused her to be searched for everywhere ; when
there appeared a Buddhist Charana who had the power
of plunging in the earth, of flying in the air, *and of
walking on water. The king after having offered the
usual respectful salutation, enquired of him whether he
had'-knowji anything of the dear one that had disappear-
ed all of a sudden, and was importunate to know from
the sage her whereabouts. The sag^e replied :
^ According to Indian notions Ctipid shewn as a bowman, carrying a
bow of sugarcane from which he shoots arrows of flowers-— the five fragrant
ones that appear jp. early spring, ^
BOOK XXIV
177
“ Though I have not seen her, I know all about her, O
King, as I have knowledge of the past. The charming
damsgl is no other than Pilivalai, the daughter of
Vasamayilai, and her husband Valaivanan, the valiant
ruler of Naga Nadu. On the day of her birth it was
predicted that she would become the mother of a son by
union with a ruler of the solar dynasty of kings. The
child lyill come here in due course, but no more the
mother. Do not, therefore, give way to useless sorrow.
But take note of this. There is a curse upon this city
that it would be swallowed up by the sea on the day that
the annual festival of Indra should be forgotten. This
is the vow of the goddess Manimekhala ; there is no
escaping it, as it is a curse of Indra. Remembering
therefore the destruction of the city then when the time
comes, and, of yours now, if you give way to useless
sorrow, save the city from being destroyed by the sea by
taking care never to forget the celebration of the festival
of Indra.” So saying, the Su.rana (Tam. : for Charana)
left. From that day onwards this city was never free
from anxiety for the safety of the city. If the damsel
who bears her name should be in distress for any
reason, it is just possible that the goddess does appeas.
I am in constant fear of that.’ Chitrapati conclude(^ her
speedy with the salutation due. The queen ordered
that Manimekhalai be brought from the prison to her
own residence, and told Chitrapati, ‘ Manimekhalai will
not go to you, nor will she enter your housg, as she
gave up both, because your life involves th« praiStice
of taking drink, speaking untruth, indulging in unres-
trained love, killing living beings, and indulging in
stealthy thoughts, evils that the wise ones have shunned
as unworthy. Therefore she would prefer to be with
me.’ • •
23
178
MAIiTIMEKHALAI
As this colloquy was taking place at the palace,
Madhavi, having heard of what had fallen her daughter,
her own mind greatly perturbed, her whole body shaken
like the flowering twig of a tree in a wild wind, and
having consulted Sutamati, fell prostrate before the
sage Aravana Adigal as the only saviour, and came
along with him to the queen. At sight of the sage,
the queen, the body of attendants, Chitrapati and Mani-
mekhalai, all of them, went forward to receive the
venerable one with due salutation. The sage blessed
them all that they might gain wisdom. The good queen
showed him a suitable seat, and after washing his feet,
and offering him the hospitality due, said : — ‘ Venerable
Sir, that you should have come with the faltering steps
of age, could be due only to our good fortune. While it
is undoubtedly true that your tongue has remained steady
all the while, may this body of yours, though it has
suffered very much from the ravages of age, keep on for
many a year to come.’ ‘ Good queen,’ said the sage in
reply, ‘though born in this body as a result of good
deeds, I am still rather like the setting sun. It is but in
the course of nature that we hear of birth and growth, of
disease and death. If people but understand the real
char^acter of the causes and conditions of existence,
nan^ly the twelve nidanas, (i) ignorance, (2) ^action
of the mind, (3) consciousness, (4) name and form,
(5) the organs of sense, (6) contact or feeling, (7) sen-
sation, /8) thirst, (9) attachment, (10) becoming or
existence, (ii) birth, (12) decay and death, they will
know ultimate happiness. If they do not understand it
correctly, they are doomed to suffer in hell.^ By ignor-
ance is to be understood the failure to understand what
was stated above, and subjecting oneself to believing
that which is heard from others. Among the three
r
BOOK XXIV
179
worlds, this world of life is limitless, and living beings in
this world fall into six classes, human beings, divine
beings, the Brahmas, the Nagas, the world of lower
creatures, and that of evil spirits. As a result of good
and bad deeds, beings come into existence in the form
of embryo in one or other of these classes, and when the
deeds work themselves out, they feel either happiness or
the reverse. Evil deeds consist in killing, stealing and
giving way to passion, these three showing themselves
in the body. Lying, evil-speaking, harsh words and
idle words, these four show themselves in speech-
Desire, anger and intolerence show themselves in the
mind. These ten are the deeds of evil, and, as their
consequences are evil, the wise ones shun them. If these
are not avoided carefully, the result is being born as an
animal or evil spirit or an inhabitant of Hell, and suffer
that which gives agony of mind. Good deeds consist
in the avoidance of the ten evils detailed above, the
adopting of the five prescribed lines of conduct and
making gifts of charity as the best action in life. Those
that do so are born either as divine beings or as human
beings or among the Brahmas, and enjoy the result of
their good action. Those of you that are attendants
upon the queen, listen with attention to this fau^iless
good pharma ; you Manimekhalai that know your^pre-
vious birth already, if you will go to me after learning
the teachings of other religions, I shall be glad to ex-
plain to you more of this.’ So saying the venerable one
got up to leave when Manimekhalai made a» profound
obeisance and eJchorted the queen, her attendants and
Ghitrapati to bear in mind the teachings of the venerable
one and save this city. ‘ If I should continue to remain
in the city, people would still talk of me as having been
death to the prince. Therefote I shall proceed to the
♦
t
180
MAIillMEKHALAI
kingdom of Aputra and therefrom to Manipallavam
where I shall again offer worship at the Buddha-seat and
then proceed to Vanji. There I shall spend som^ time
in doing deeds of charity in devotion to the chaste one
Kannaki. Do not be anxious as to what would happen
to me, my friends.’ Having said this and made her pro-
found obeisance to the company, she started up in the
air like a stream of molten gold, as the sun was sinking
below the horizon. Going to the Chakravalakottam,
she circumambulated three times the guests ’ hall, the
temple of Champapati, and the statue on the pillar and
passed by way of air to where ‘ the descendant of Indra ’
(Aputra) was holding rule. Getting down in a grove
of flowering trees, she, with due reverence, enquired of a
hermit the name of the place and that of the ruler of the
locality. She was told that the city was Nagapura, and
its ruler Punyaraja, the son of Bhumichandra. He fur-
ther offered the information that ‘ since the birth of this
ruler, rains have never failed, earth and trees have
always yielded plenty, and living beings have had no taste
of wasting diseases.’
BOOK XXV
In ithe meanwhile King Puriyaraja himself with his
queen and following entered the grove and paid his
respects to the Dharma Sravaka. He listened to the
exposition by the latter of the nature of Dharma and its
opposite, of that which is eternal and those that are not,
sorraw and its causes, the passing of life after death and
the place which it reaches, the causes and conditions of
existence, how to get rid of these and the nature of the
teacher (Buddha), with great attention. Noticing in the
company a young woman of unparalleled beauty, and,
judging by her look and, the begging bowl in her hand.
BOOK XKV
181
that she was one of those on whom Cupid had no
influence, he enquired who the rare being was. In reply
to thg enquiry, the king’s chamberlain said : ‘ In the
whole of India (Jambudvipa) there is not another like this
young lady. I learned all about her when, for securing
the friendship of king Killi, I sailed across to Kaveri-
pattinam, a city which has the river flowing on one side.
I did explain to your Majesty on my return what I had
myself learned from sage Aravana Adigal in regard to
her birth, and he recountedit as one who had knowledge
of it. This is the same young lady who has come here
from Kaveripattinam.’ Manimekhalai, hearing this said,
‘ You have forgotten that it was your begging-bowl that
has come to my hand, perhaps of your great wealth
and prosperity now in this life of yours. It may be
natural that you have forgotten that previous life ;
but how is it that you have forgotten this very life in
which you came to birth of a cow. It is impossible for
you to learn, you will not understand the nature of birth
that binds us to our existence here, unless you circum-
ambulate thrice the Buddha-seat in the island of Mani-
pallavam. Oh, king, please go over there.’ So
addressing the king, she rose into the air and, before the
setting of the sun, she came down to the earth on the
island^ of Manipallavam, and saw there, after going rpund
the little island, the Buddha-seat. Walking round it by
the right and prostrating before it, she understood all
that took place in her previous existence. Mapimekhalai
recounted, while in this act of worship of the iseat,, what
the sage Sadhu ^akkara taught when the king of Gandhara
took leave qf him on the banks of the Kayarnkarai. The
sage taught his followers to avoid evil deeds which
inevitably would give them birth among animals, the
people of the nether world and,evil spirits- He pointed
182
MAtTIMEKHALAl
out that, if they should do so, they would take their
birth among the gods, or men or among the Brahmas.
On attaining such birth, they should do good deed%only,
without remissness. The enlightened one who had learnt
the truth of things without delusion or falsehood will
take birth in the world for saving it. It is only those
that have the good fortune to hear his teaching from him
that can get rid of birth. Therefore you exhorted
‘ before inevitable death comes to you pursue the way of
charity by leading a goodjife.’ When however my
husband and myself, having heard this teaching of yours
and made a profound obeisance to you, you spoke to us
only words boding evil. May I know why before the
advent of the enlightened one this miraculous seat was
placed here by Indra for him ? Why should this exalted
seat of the enlightened one let me know my previous
birth ? To this the guardian deity of the island said in
reply: ‘This seat will accept nobody other than the
fully enlightened one ; Indra will not worship it.
Therefore Indra commanded that the seat of good might
let those that worship it know their previous birth till
the enlightened one should occupy it. Therefore it is
that the seat exhibits to those that worship it their
previous lives clearly.’ So said the deity that day, and
I feej as though she is saying it to me now.’ So paying,
she went round the seat and prostrated before it.
While she was thus engaged in Manipallavam, the
king returned from the hermitage of the sage to the palace.
Leaftiing .from his mother Amarasundari the actual
nature of this birth of his, and how he came to be the
occupant of the throne of Savakam, he tjpcame very
much ^ humiliated with sorrow , at what happened to him
in the previous birth when his mother left him by the
road-side in aomparison .with what his distinguished
i
BOOK XXV
183
position in the present life was. He observed that much
the best thing for him to do would be to renounce life
giving^ up all his present splendour; when kings awaited
his time to see him ; when he had to gather round him
good men and true ; when he had to spend more of his
time in seeing lovely artists dance or in hearing musi-
cians sing ; when, instead of giving up love when women
showed^themselves irresponsive, he had to make protesta-
tions of love in various ways to them, ail the while being
a slave of passion. He congratulated himself that this
teaching which the holy Sravaka first taught him was
then coming to fruit by means of Manimekhalai. On
hearing these reflections from the king, the chief minister,
Janamitra, seeing that the king’s mind was undergoing
a transformation, said : ‘ Remember, O great monarch !
that before my former sovereign and yours, obtained you
for a son by favour of the holy one, this land of ours had
suffered for twelve years from failure of rain, and of famine
of such severity in consequence, that the very mothers
would sooner eat their children to appease their own
hunger than feed them, and in such dire distress you ap-
peared as a welcome rain-cloud in the worst of summer.
Since then never have rains failed, nor land its fertility,;
living beings have never known hunger. If you should
give up rule and retire, all of your subjects will weep^ as a
child at the death of the mother. If, for the sake of life
in a higher world, you choose to give up this, living
beings here will reach their end and you will be held
responsible for the calamity. This is not th^ teaching
of Him, the first one, who unmindful of his own life,
made ithis,duty to protect living beings. You are ap-
parently labouring under some delusion.’ Hearing this,
the king, not being able to resist the desire to go and
worship the Buddha-seat at l^anipallavatn, begged his
184
MAlsriMEKHALAI
minister to bear the responsibility for a month, of pro-
tecting his kingdom and conducting its administration.
So saying he ordered sailors to get ready ship.^ at the
harbour and embarked. The convoy had an uninterrupt-
ed voyage till it reached Manipallavam. Manimekhalai
seeing that that was the fleet that brought the king, took
the king round and showed him the miraculous Buddha-
seat. The seat showed to the king, as if in, a clear
mirror, his anterior history. The king proclaimed with
joy, ‘ I have learned all of my previous birth ; I have rid
myself of all that was evil. Oh, the Goddess of Learn-
ing at southern Madura, the home of Tamil, was it not
you that offered me the inexhaustible bowl when at dead
of night and in pouring rain, I was in great sorrow at
not being able to give food to those that sought it of me ; '
and was it not you, the Divine One ! that destroyed my
birth? Whether I should be born among the gods or in
the Brahma world, I shall never give up the maintenance
and protection of living beings.’ So saying, he went
south-east along with Manimekhalai, and the two rested
for a while on the bank of the tank Gomukhi. There
then appeared before them the Goddess of the Isle and
a,ddressed the king in the following words : ‘ Oh, king,
who^ relieved the pangs of hunger, those that had for-
gotten you when last you came here* returned her^ after-
wards in search of you ; knowing that you had died they
gave up their life in the manner that you yourself did.
These are the bones of the nine Settis that died thus,
andThese^ of their servants who maintained by them in
life, paid their debt to their masters by loyalty in death.
Your bones are covered with sand under athe Punnai
(Sans. Punnaga, Alexandrian Laurel, Calophyllum
mophyllum) tree. By giving up your life, you have
made yourselLresponsiblo, for the lives of those who gave
BOOK XXV
185
it up for yourself. Please consider whether you are not
responsible for their death.’ So saying she turned round
to Manimekhalai and explained to her how the city of
her birth Kaveripattinam was swallowed up by the sea.
‘ Pilivalai the daughter of the king of Naga Nadu, when
she had borne a son for the king of the solar race, was
worshipping the Buddha-seat when there arrived the
ship of.Kamba|a Setti. Finding out who he was, she
handed over the child to him with the message that the
child was the Chola king»s. Immensely pleased the
merchant took charge of the child and sailed away with
it homewards. In the deep darkness of the night, the
ship got wrecked near the shores, and nobody knew
what had happened to the baby. Learning from such of
them as escaped that the child was among those whose
whereabouts were not known, king-Killi (Vadivel-Killi)
set about searching here, there and everywhere, and, in
his anxiety, forgot that the time had arrived for the
celebration of the great Indra festival. Goddess Mani-
mekhala, as the guardian deity, invoked the curse that
the city be destroyed by the sea. Hence the destruc-
tion of Kaveripattinam. The king went away, like
Indra when the whole of his prosperity was also swallowecT
up by the sea, all alone. The sage Aravana Adigal«nd
• your mf)ther and others went away in safety to VSnji.
If you should feel sorry to hear of the curse of the
Goddess Manimekhala, the guardian of the sea, you
will hear the consoling information, that she was the
cause of the saving of the life of one of your ancestors
who was about to be drowned in a shipwreck, and who
lived, in consequence to do many acts of charity and earn
the reputation of being the most charitable man at the
time. You will hear of this from Aravana Adigal.’ So say-
ing the Goddess of the Isle disappeared. Overcome with
186
MANIMEKHALAI
grief, the king with Manimekhalai dug up his bones that
lay buried and discovered the bones all in position not-
withstanding the fact the flesh and the sinews that Jpound
them together had been eaten up. He constructed over
them a sarcophagus of white mortar preserving the form
of the body. The king gave way to sorrow at the sight
of the form when Manimekhalai rose into the air and
telling the king : ' ‘ What are you doing ? I brought you
here from your own kingdom in order to let you know
your previous birth and thereby enable you to continue
the rule with charity in your great island and the islets
in the sea between. If kings themselves adopt the rule
of charity, what is there to keep under control ? If you
should ask what is the supreme form of charity, bear this
carefully in mind that it is the maintenance of all living
creatures with food and clothing and places to live in
safety.’ The king said in reply : ‘ Be it in my kingdom
or in that of others, I shall adopt the path of charity as
described by you. I can however ill afford to let
you go away from me inasmuch as you brought me here
and enlightened me as to the nature of my previous birth,
and gave me, as it were a re-birth. Oh, I cannot part
from you.’ ‘O king, do not give way to sorrow weakly.
Your kingdom will be calling for you because of your
absence. Take ship and return. For my part 4 shall .
go to Vanji.’ So saying Manimekhalai flew across in
the air.
« ", BOOK XXVI
Flying across through the air Manimekhalai reached
Vanji, and wishing to offer worship to the image both of
her chaste mother Kannaki and her father Kovalan, she
reached the temple erected in honour of the former.
Standing before the image, with her head bowed in
BOOK XXVI
187
reverence, she praised the deity in the following terms : —
‘ Instead of paying the debt of a chaste wife by either
dying^with the husband, or putting an end to your life
on hearing of the husband’s death, you took upon your-
self the duty of vindicating your chastity,’ She prayed
with tearful eyes that the chaste wife may have the
kindness to explain this unusual procedure to her. The
unparalleled goddess of chastity replied to her : ‘ When
not being able to suffer the calamity that befell my
husband, I caused the destruction of Madura by fire, the
great Goddess of the city, Madhurapati, appeared before
me and assured me that that was the result of our deeds
in a previous birth. “ Two princes, cousins by birth and
ruling respectively in Simhapuraand Kapila in the fertile
country of Kalinga, fell to fighting against each other in
great hatred. This war between Vasu and Kumara left
the country desolate for six gWvudas (leagues), and made
it impossible for anybody to approach on account of the
prevalence of the war. A merchant Sangama by name
with his wife, eager after profit, went there to sell
jewellery and other articles of sale at Singapuram, In the
course of his business, he was arrested by Bharata, a
police official of the monarch, and shown up before thf
monarch as a spy. Under royal orders he was beheaded
and his wife bewailing the unfortunate death of her
* husband, put an end to her own life by throwing herself
from the top of a hill. It is the curse that she invoked
at the moment of her death that has now resulted in the
mishap to your husband.” The deeds done in i previous
existence will inevitably result in suffering the penalty.
Notwithstanding the truth of this, I brought about the
destruction of the city by fire. Asa result of good deeds
already done we have reached the heaven of the gods for
the time. We have the consciousness tha^we shall have
188
MANIMEKHALAI
to pay the penalty for this bad deed in the future. If
we cease to be in heaven, we are sure to be born on
earth once again, thus working out the result of our
deeds till such time when in the Magadha country of
unfailing rain, in that bright city of Kapila, there should
appear Buddha of limitless perfection. He will there
attain to enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, and pro-
ceed out of mercy to living beings to teach the Four
Truths, the twelve causes and conditions, the means of
destroying these causes and ^conditions, and thus enjible
people to give up that which is evil all through this
universe of existence. As a result of our having wor-
shipped at the seven vihuras of Indra at Kaveripattinam,
we shall not at the time be born in a life of suffering,
and will then listen to his teaching with attention. The
wish to renounce life will then dawn onus. We shall
then cease to be born on earth. Even so we shall for a
long time be the means of bringing about the fruition of
their good deeds to many people. O, dear one, you set
out at this old city to learn, from the votaries of the
different systems of religion, their various systems and,
when it appears to you as it will, that none of these
Qpntains the truth, you will then follow the teaching of
“ the Pitakas of the Great One ”. This is what is going
to happen.’ Having said this, she gave Mapimejkhalai ,
to understand that, being the young woman that she was,
nobody would teach her the highest truths of religion,
and therefore she exhorted her to assume another form
more suitable for learning these truths. Maijimekhalai
accordingly assumed the form of an old hermit by making
use of the mantra which Goddess Maniniekhala had
taught her. In this guise she went to the temples, to
the platforms, to the halls, to the gardens, to the tanks*
wherever those devoted^ to penance, those who by
BOOK XXVII
189
discipline had attained to the control of their passions,
those who by great learning had attained to the know-
ledge of the right path, all round the fortification of the
city. The ruling sovereign of this city, the great Chera
Senguttuvan, having reduced all the land to the same
condition as that of his own hill country, had marched
at the head of his army up to the banks of the Ganges,
crossing over to its northern bank by means of boats,
defeated many kings, including Kanaka and Vijaya;
and, bringing a stone from the Himalayas carried on the
heads of the defeated kings, celebrated the binding of
the fillet of victory by wearing the garland of Vskai.
This great capital continued to be her residence till, by
the ripening of the causes, she was ready to receive the
teaching of the Four great Truths.
BOOK XXVII
Setting about on her mission to the city of Vanji,
she went to the assemblage of the teachers of the differ-
ent persuasions, and addressing the leader of the votaries
of the path of the Vida, asked him to let her know the
ultimate truth as he understood it. Discoursing on th?
instruments of knowledge as recognized by his school,
, he poijjted out that three teachers were recognized ^ of
authority among them, namely, Vedavyasa, Krtakoti and
the faultless Jaimini. These three have recognized in-
struments of knowledge to be ten, eight and six respec-
tively. These are (i) direct perception {Pratyakshe^,
(2) Inference {AnumSnd), similitude (4)
authority {Mgamd), (5) inferential assumption
patti), (6) appropriateness {lycdbu ox SziabMm),' (y)
tradition {Aitihyd), (8) non-existence or negation [Abhuvci),
(9) inference by elimination or by correlation {Mltchi or
190
MAl^IMfeKHALAI
Olibu, Sans. : PUrtSeshd) and (lo) occurrence {UnduneH
or UlMneri, San. : Sambhavd).
Of these, (i) Ksicki, direct perception, is of five
kinds, according as they are perceived by the particular
sense organ, namely, sensation of the colour by the eyes,
sound by the ear, smell by the nose, taste by the tongue,
and touch by the body. By means of these is experi-
enced pleasure or pain. Contact of these with^the life
principle {Prana, or Uyir of the text), the means of com-
munication of these {vayil),^n^ the mind that experi-
ences these {manas), operating without interruption lead
to understanding without exclusion, without error and
without doubt, of place, of form, of genus, of quality, of
action with due reference to light (clearness of under-
standing ?), sense and place.
(2) Karudal {anumSnd) is the inference of that which
is unseen from that which is seen or felt. It is of three
kinds, namely, (i) the common {Podu\ Sans. : Samanya),
(2) proceeding from the result to the cause, {Eccham ;
or Sans. : Seskavai) and (3) from the cause to the result
{Mudal ; or Sans. : Purvavab). It is common inference
when, though two circumstances may not be connected
Uievitably with each other, the occurrence of the one
leads to the inference of the other, as in the case of the
infe^nce of the existence of an elephant in a forest when ,
one hears a sound like the trumpting of an elephant. In
inferring from the sight of freshes in a river, rain at the
source of it, is inference of the cause from the result.
When we.predict rain from the sight of the clouds, we
are inferring the result from a cause* Thus infereoce
is knowledge that we gain of that which is npt present ;
and is applicable to the past, present and future.
(3) The third means of knowledge UpamSna has
reference to understanding by comparison by means of
BOOK XXVII
191
similitude. (4) is understanding by authority as
when we assume the existence of heaven and hell from the
writings of those of authority. (5) ArtJi^paiti is under-
standing by association, as when a shepherd’s village is
said to be on the Ganges, we understand that it is situate
on the banks of the river. (6) lyalbu that which is appro-
priate to the actual circumstances as when a man on the
back of^an elephant wants ‘ the stick ’, one understands
the goad. (7) Aitiham, accepted tradition, as in the case
of a ghost existing in a tree^. (8) Abhavam is merely the
assertion of that which does not exist in a place as non-
existent there. (9) Mttchi is understanding by corre-
lation as when it is said that Rama won in the battle,
one understands the defeat of Ravana. (10) Ullaneri
(lit. course of nature) is what usually happens as when
an iron piece moves, we infer the existence of a magnet.
Eight are the pramana-abhasas^ those that resemble
instruments of knowledge, or can be regarded as such ;
(i) knowledge by direct contact by which we
learn the existence of all that exists ; (2) Tiryak-Kodal^
mistaken conception such as taking the mother of pearl
for silver ; (3) Aiyam, doubt, remaining unsettled whether
that which appears before the eye is a stump of wood 0/
a man ; (4) Teradu-Telidal, deciding without conviction,
, as in mistaking a stump of wood for a man ; (5) Kd;^u-
Tmrama% not understanding even on seeing, such as not
understanding a creature to be a tiger even after
seeing it prowling near: (6) Il-valakku, asserting as
existent that which does not exist, as in spealyng o 4 the
horns of a rabbit understandable only by the use of the
expression, ^nd not by actual existence of the thing con-
noted by the word ; (7) Unarndadai-Unardal feeling that
which is plainly felt by experience, such as attempting to
prove that fire is destructive o^f mist, and, (8) Ninaippu^
192
MAliJIMEKHALAI
perception by assumption, such as taking a couple to be
one’s father and mother on the statement of others. Six
are the systems that are founded on the basis of, these
instruments of knowledge ; (i) Lokayata, (2) Bauddha, (3)
Sankhya, (4) Nayyayika, (5; Vaiseshika, and (6) Mimaihsa.
The teachers of these six systems respectively are, (i) Br-
haspati, (2) Jina, (3) Kapila, (4) Akshapada, (5), Kanada,
and (6) Jaimini. Truth is ascertained by m^ans of
Pmtyaksha, {2) Anumana, (3) Satta (Sans. Sabda
otherwise Agamd)^ (4) Upfcmana, (5) ArthapattimA
(6) Abhava. These are the instruments of knowledge
accepted as such ‘ at the present time ’.
Passing on from him, she went to the SaivavEdi. In
response to her enquiry that he might explain his system,
he stated the two lights (the sun and the moon), the doer
and the five elements constitute the basis from out of which
human beings are made by combination of life and body.
He ivho does this is constituted of the Kalas ; his nature
it is to create beings as an act of play, and he destroys them
and thus gets rid of their sufferings ; and He, besides whom
there is none else, such a one is my God The Brahma-
vadi told her that the whole of the universe is the out-
cpme of one egg brought forth by the supreme being,
Brahma. A teacher who had eagerly studied the purana
of Vjshnu (he of the colour of the sea) asserte 4 that
Narayana was the protector of all. The Vedavadi
averred that the Veda, otherwise called Arana, the unborn
source of knowledge, has neither beginning nor end. Kalpa
constitutes its hands, Chandas its feet, En {/yotisha or
astronomy) its eyes, Nirukta its ears, Siksha its nose and
Vyakarana its face. ‘ The path taught in the Veda is the
path of life.’ Manimekhalai felt that the teachings of these
would not conform either to truth itself as taught in
learned books,, or as practised by the knowing.
BOOK XXVII
193
She then addressed the venerable one, the expounder of
‘ the book ’ of the Ajivakas, and asked him to state what
the governing deity was according to him and what the
authoritative work of his teaching. The Ajivaka teacher
replied : ‘ That one whose knowledge is limitless and
who is seen immanent always and in all things of the vast
and limitless variety of things that exist, is ‘ our supreme
teacher.’ The subject matter of the treatise dealing
with the Ajivakas is of five things, namely, life and the
fo«r elements, earth, wa^er, fire, and air in indivisible
atoms. These when they combine could be felt and
seen, but when broken up, they could not be seen. The
elements, earth, water, fire and air, these four gather
together as a hill, tree or body; or disintegrate and
spread themselves out as the constituent atoms. That
which perceives these phenomena is what is called life.
Earth is in the form of a solid, wrater exhibits the quality
of coolness and is fluid ; fire sends up its flame and
causes the sensation of heat; air moves to and fro.
Thus is constituted the nature of these elements. These
in their atomic condition, without a beginning, may
assume another nature by change of form, but cannot be
destroyed. There is nothing that comes into existeiTce
anew and enters into another. The atom will noj^ split
into J;wo, nor will it expand in that same form. iThese
will however move, will flow and will rise. They will
combine into a hill ; they will break up into each its own
particular form of atoms. They may come.together in
■such density as to assume the form of* solid? like
diamond ; they will assume the form of a hallow
bamboo ; J;hey will constitute the seed which sprouts
out and grows. Thus the elements, as the full moon,
when they spread out together over the whole earth and
assume the forms of the various bhutas, remain combined
25 '
194
MAIiTIMEKHALAI
in the proportion of the whole, or three quarters, or
half, or a quarter, but neither more nor less, and get
named according as the one or the other predominates.
Unless they combine in this manner, they will not
attain to the forms of the firm earth, or fluid water, or
the warming fire, or the moving wind. One atom could
be seen only by those who have the divine eye of
knowledge ; others cannot see them. In the shape of
combined atoms constituting bhutas they can be seen ;
just as in the dusk of an evening one may not se« a
single hair, though one could easily discern a bundle of
it. These atoms in their combination are born in black,
or dark blue, or green, or red, or golden, or pure white.
These are the six forms in which these elements take
birth, in combination. These are in the rising order of
excellence, and it is by being born pure white that
these attain to cessation of birth [vldii). Those who do
not wish to suffer will reach this end. This is the
nature of the path of righteousness. The false path, on
the contrary, is a circle of birth, death and suffering, of
taking birth in the place appointed, of suffering sorrow
and happiness in the great majority of cases. Getting
rid of these, of being born and of dying, come to a being
in the womb. Happiness and suffering and the result
of the-se may be described as atoms also. It is a previ-
ous fate that makes for the suffering to follow. This
is the essence of the teaching of the treatise of Markali.^
Maniraekh^lai regarding this as a contradictory state-
ment of ill-applied words, passed on to the Nirgrantha.
^ Markali, it is obvious, is Markali Gosala, the founder of the sect of Ajiva-
kas. But any treatise written by him has not so far been noticed to my know-
ledge. Here apparently is an accepted work of authority by this teacher.
That work according to the NilakeSi Tirattu is called Navakadir^ translated
into Tamil, Onbadukadir. According to the same authority, the teaching of
|he Ajivakas had g^reat vogue in a place called Samadanda.
BOOK XXVII
195
She asked the Nirgrantha, as she did the others to
expound truly ‘ who the deity that he worshipped was
and jvhat the teaching o£ the authoritative works o£ bis
sect ; how that teaching takes effect, what it is that binds
them to existence and how release can be obtained
from this bondage.’ He replied: ‘Our deity is that
one who is worshipped by the Indras. The teaching
that hg vouchsafed to us consists of the following six
sections : —
• (i) Dharmastikaya, («) Adharmastikaya, (3) Kala,
(4) Akasa, (5) Jiva, (6) the Paramanus. Good deeds and
bad deeds and the bondage {iaudka) resulting therefrom
together with release {mdu) from this bondage, constitute
the excellent teaching. A thing may exist in its own
nature, or change it and assume thatof another with which
it is associated. So doing it shows itself impermanent
and permanent, thus exhibiting at one moment the three
conditions of appearance, existence and destruction, the
three indivisible states. That a margosa seed sprouts
and grows into a tree makes the seed eternal, but that
the seed no longer exists in the tree makes it non-eternal.
So also when green peas are boiled and made into a
pastry, the nature of the peas is not destroyed and yetit
ceases to be peas. The cause of the change cs in
Dharmastikaya (principle of movement) which Exists
everywhere and enables movement in things. Similarly
the related principle of stationariness is equally eternal
and all-pervading and enables things to be ia a statical
condition. Time measures things by the short span of
a second as well as the almost immeasurable Kalpa.
AkaSa gives the .space for all things to be in. When
jtva or life combines with the body or matter, it is capable
of enjoying taste, etc. The irreducible atom may form
part of a body or be something else out dl it. It is jlva
MANIMEKHALAi
iS6
in combination with body that does good or does evil.
The result of these deeds is bondage ; the suppression of
the causes and the consequent bondage arising therq^rom,
constitutes release {Nirvaiid).
The Sankhya philosopher expounded that the Primary
Element (Mula Prakrti) forms the matrix in which all
things appear. It has no activity of its own and is
common to all. It is formed of the three qualities, and
is difficult to conceive. From this primary element
(Mula Prakrti) arises Mahaii or Buddhi (great) ; fwam
this springs akasa (space) ; from akasa arises vayu (air) ;
from air arises fire, a^ni (Sans. Agni) ; from this again
comes water {appii, Sans. Apah) ; from water arises
earth. From a combination of all these springs mind
(manas). In the mind springs the notion of self ahmikum
(or individuation). Similarly from akasa springs sound
heard by the ear; from vayu the sense of touch felt by
the skin; from agni arises the sense of sight felt by the
eyes; from out of water taste experienced by the tongue;
from earth springs the sense of smell experienced by the
nose. These find expression by means of the physical
organs ; speech by the tongue, touch by the hand, move-
ment by the feet, evacuation by puyu (excretal organs)
and generation by upastha (generative organs). Thus
arising by transformation of the bhutas recited above,
come into existence hills, trees, etc. These again get
merged in their sources in a process of involution as they
come into existence by a process of evolution. In the
process of involution all these become one again and
pervade all space and exist for eternity.
Purusha (subject) on the contrary, is easy to conceive,
without being the three qualities {gums), incapable of be-
ing grasped by the sense organs {indriyas) without being
the matrix in ^hich othei*things appear, being none-the-
BOOK XXVIl
197
less that which could be felt by all those things, being a
unity all-pervading and eternal, will show itself as that
which is conceived as eternal. Things understood by
the senses are twenty-five. Of these the five elements
are earth, w'ater, fire, air and ether; five are the organs,
the body, the mouth, the eyes, the nose and the ear.
Taste, sight, touch, sound and smell, these are the five
subtle , elements, the tongue, the feet, the hands, the
excretary organs, and the generating organs constitute
the^organs of action. Then follow' mind {manas), intelli-
gence {biiddhi), subjectivation {aliankarani), feeling
{chittani) and life, otherwise called alma. T bese constitute
the twenty-five entities {tatvas).
Having heard this clear exposition, Manimekhalai
passed on to the Vaiseshika, and asked him to proceed
with his argument. ‘ Substance, qualities, action,
commonness, speciality and collectivity, these constitute
the six divisions. Of these the first has the attributes
of the second and the third, and is the cause of all
things. These substances, or matter, fall into nine
divisions, earth, water, fire, air, space, the directions,
time, soul and mind. Of these, earth is possessed of
the five qualities, of sound, touch, sight, taste, and
smell. The other four (water, fire, air and space) ^ave
• qualities, each one less, in the order in which they are
given above. Sound, touch, sight, smell, taste, largeness,
smallness, hardness, softness, rightness, thinness, capa-
city to take shape, capacity to take sight, these csonstitute
the qualities of matter. Matter, quality and capacity for
action are common to all forms of matter. Since change
of form and stationariness are common qualities of all
matter, death and existence constitute also the essence
•of matter. Attributes, division of matter and collection
of matter, qualities and that which has qhalities, these
198 MAijJIMEKHALAI
are the main features of existing things,’ concluded the
Vaiseshika teacher.
She addressed herself last of all to the Bhutavad^ He
said; ‘Just as when the flower Bauhinia race-
mosa) and jaggery(crude sugar) with other things are mixed
fermentation springs into existence, so when the ele-
ments combine, there springs a consciousness of feeling.
When they break up, this consciousness will alsQ break
up and disappear just as the sound ceases when a drum is
taken out into its parts. Any 6)ne of these elements, when
it is in life and has this consciousness, and when it has
neither of these, springs into existence from out of the
same element. This is the true course of things. Other
details of the teaching that I may have to expound, and
the tatvas that I may have to explain are the same as
those of the Lokayatas. Among the Frammas, Praiyaksha
is the one admissible, even Anumana is to be rejected.
That which exists in the present, and that which we
enjoy in this present life, are the only two states of
existence ; that there is another life and the enjoyment
of the result of our deeds in it, are both of them false.’
Having thus heard the teachings of all the systems, she
Thought; ‘Though these be none of them acceptable, I
sha^l not answer any of these. Does anybody know that
I have knowledge of my previous birth.’ So saying she •
laughed in scorn at the imperfections of the Bhutavadi’s
argument in particular. She further observed ‘ that
the minds of people change when one gets possessed,
or 'when 'one is in a state of dreaming. There can be
no doubt about this. Do you not recognize your father
and mother only by inference .? Who on this earth can
understand this otherwise ? Without understanding the
ultimate truth, it would be impossible without a doubt"
to know the truth oi things.’ While still in her
BOOK XXVIII
199
disguise, she gave this reply to the Bhutavadi, having
learnt already the five systems of thought, the five,
nameljj? (i) Vaidikavada, taking into it the first five
sections, and (2) Jaina, including 6 and 7 following,
and (3), (4), (5) the Sankhya, Vaiseshika and Bhutavada
including Lokayata, of the ten systems expounded in
this chapter.
* BOOK XXVIII
'phere in the city of Vagji she searched for Aravana
Adigal and her mother and companion, and, passing
through the outer city into the fort and the various
streets occupied by the different classes of citizens, she
reached the place where those that travel through the
air get down to land. She still preserved her disguise,
and entered the vihura of the Bauddhas as beautiful as the
Aindravihara at Kaveripattinam where the residents
listened to the exposition of the teachings of the Buddha.
Finding there the father of Kovalan among the holy
ones, she made her obeisance to him in due form and
recounted to him how she came into possession of
the miraculous bowl, how by means of that she became
acquainted with the king of Savaham who was ‘ ruling *
the earth ’ in great prosperity, how she taught himiiis
4)reviou^ birth by showing him the Buddha-seat • in
Manipallavam, and how in the course of these transac-
tions the city of Puhar was swallowed up by the sea.
Learning that, on account of this calamity, her* mother
and the sage Aravana Adigal had left for Vanji, she
journeyed to that city sending the king of Savaham
back to his kingdom. Arriving at Vanji, she said that,
in her new form, she heard the teachings of the various
other persuasions from men most competent to expound
them. Rejecting them all as not Hght, she wished to hear
200 MAlillMEKHALAI
the teaching of the Buddha which was superior to them
all, and came in search of Aravana Adigal. Having said
this, she told him that it was her good fortune that
brought her to the presence of him who had assumed the
holy garb of a Buddhist mendicant. He said in reply :
‘ Listen, dear one, having heard of the calamity that
befell both your father and mother and the consequent
destruction of Madura, I resolved to give up thg life of
a householder which was but a delusion, since the time
had come for me to adopt t}»e life of a Buddhist msudi-
cant Feeling convinced that this body and all the
wealth that I had acquired through life were alike
unstable, I took up this life and resolved to adopt the
path of the Dkarma. Having assumed such a life how
I happened to come to this city, I shall recount now.
Once on a former occasion when the great Chera king,
the ruler of the Kuttuvar, who planted his emblem of the
bow on the Himalayas with the ladies of the household
entered this grove and remained here in the pleasance
for recreation, a few Dha-rmachamnas who, having
worshipped the hill Samanoli in the island of Lanka
and, passing round in circumambulation, made up their
" minds to get down to earth as the time for setting the
king on the good path had come. Seeing them on this
rock, he offered worship to them as a insult oi
previous good deeds, and, washing their feet in due form,
offered to them food prepared of “ the four kinds and
tqe sixT flavours ”. Having done this, he praised their
condesc*ension and offered them worship with due
hospitality along with his whole court. On that occa-
sion these holy ones expounded to him the sufferings of
birth and the joys of ceasing to be born, and thus
implanted into his mind the Four Truths of the firet
teacher of ^the JDh&nrfti, 1 hen the ninth ancestor of
BOOK XXVIII
201
Kovalan, your father, being an intimate friend of the
Chera king had also the benefit of the instruction as a
result^ of the accumulated merit of his good deeds.
Distributing among the needy all the ancestral wealth
that he inherited and all that he himself had added to it,
he erected for the Sugata (Buddha) this Chaitya of brilliant
white stucco with its turrets reaching to the skies. Since
this was erected in order that those that live in this world
might visit it and destroy the evil attaching to them, I
caA^ here to offer worship.^ Hearing from the holy ones
here that Kaveripattinam was likely to be swallowed up
by the sea, I made up my mind to stay here alone. Fur-
ther your father who had lost his life as a result of evil
deeds, would appear as a god as a result of good deeds in
past existence. Enjoying the result of all previous good
deeds in that life, he would at the end of this life be
born along with his wife in the holy city of Kapila
(Kapilavastu) as he had the benefit of the Buddha’s
teaching previously. Listening to the teaching of the
Buadha in that city, he will attain to the end of living
(Nirvana). This I had heard from those who know the
past, present and future, and understood the drift of it.
I also shall hear that teaching on that day along with yo«r
father. Farther since you had learnt your past^from
* Tuva^ikan, the statuette on the pillar, I had listengd to
the teaching of Aravana Adigal expounding the path of
good life. He is the cause of good to you, as is also the
city of Kanchi. On the day that he left fojr Kanchi,
your mother and her companion Sutamati als® left Vith
him. More than this, listen beautiful one, Kanchi of
golden battlements has lost all her beauty since the
country dependent thereon had been suffering from a
• severe famine owing to failure of rain. Even the holy
ftiendicant ones there had none to give them alms, and
26 •
202
MAdlMEKHALAI
have arrived here. You carry the balm for hunger, and
therefore you should appear in that country, and like
seasonal rain, you must revive the languishing (^ountry
and its inhabitants.’ Thus concluded the holy one.
Manimekhalai with a profound obeisance to him, rose
into the air with the bowl in her hand to the west of the
city, and moving along the north, reached the city of
Kanchl, which looked like the city of Indra , himself
descended to the earth, and which, losing its fertility,
looked poor like the thus impoverished city of heaven
itself. With a melting heart for the sufferings of the city,
she flew round the city in circumambulation, and, descend-
ing in the middle of it, worshipped the Chaitya which
was erected for the Bodhi tree and the Buddha himself,
the former of which was made of gold, both stem and
branches, and of emerald leaves. She passed on to the
south-west into a grove full of flowering trees. The
chief of the palace guard went to the king and intimated
to him that the daughter of Kovalan, the eminently holy
and the unparalleled one in the whole of Jambudvipa,
had arrived at the city, and, with the inexhaustible food-
providing bowl in her hand, was just then in the Dhar-
'^mada Vana. Her appearance being quite as welcome
as tjiat of welcome rain, the king with his ‘ assemblies of
ministers ’, feeling gratified that what the statuette on
the pillar had said had already turned true, offering
worship and praising her, bowed to her from a distance
and went to the grove where she was. Addressing her,
he ''said : ‘ Either because my rule had deflected from
the path of righteousness, or because of errors in the
performance of austerities by those whose duty it was to
do them, or because of women falling away from the
path of chastity, the whole of my country suffers from'
want of rain, ' Not knowing how it came about, I was
BOOK XXVIII
203
in great perplexity when a goddess appeared before me
and said; — “ Give up grief. As a result of your good
deeds in the past, there will appear a damsel with a
begging bowl in her hand. Fed from that inexhaustible
bowl the whole living world will revive. As a result of
her grace, rains will pour in plenty at the command of
Indra, and many other miracles will take place in this
town. Even when rains fail, the country will still have
an abundance of water. In the great streets, construct
tanjfs and plant gardens, so that they may appear with
the tanks constructed of olcf, as if the great Manipallavam
itself had come here.” So saying she disappeared.’
He pointed out to Manimekhalai where exactly he
actually carried out the instructions of the goddess.
Manimekhalai entered the grove, and, pleased with its
appointments and appearance, she got consructed a
Buddha seat just like that which she saw in Manipalla-
vam. She also got a temple constructed for Tivatilakai
and the goddess Manimekhala, and arranged for the
celebration of recurring festivals through the king.
Having arranged for all these, she performed the actual
worship, and placing the begging bowl on the Buddha-
seat, she invited all living beings suffering from hungejr
to come in. Then there came crowds of people speak-
* ing ‘ ^e eighteen languages ’ ; the blind, the deaf* the
maimed, the helpless, the dumb, the diseased, those
engaged in the performance of penance, those suffering
from hunger, those suffering from extreme poverty,
these and many hundreds of thousands of aaimalsf all
came crowding in. To all of them, she supplied food so
inexhaustibly that it was only the hands of those that
received it that felt exhausted. They all returned after
• satisfying, to the full, their hunger, praising the young
lady, who appeared as if through the resuli of having fed
20i
MAIiTIMEICHALAI
a very holy person in previous existence, and thereby
brought prosperity to the land, as an abundance of water,
good land, timely rain, change of seasons, the necessary
instruments of cultivation, seeds sown properly and
yield returning in plenty, would. At this time, there
came to the grove Aravana Adigal with her mother and
her companion Sutamati. She prostrated before them,
and, washing their feet, saw them seated suitably to their
holiness, and provided them with delicious food and
drink. She served to them ^afterwards betel and oam-
phor, and prayed that what she long desired may turn
fruitful and true. So saying, she discarded her disguise
and made a profound obeisance again.
CHAPTER XXIX
After bestowing his blessing upon the young lady
who had made her obeisance to him in due form. Saint
Aravana said to her : ‘ Pilivalai the daughter of the
king of Naga Nadu, made over jier tender baby, born to
Nedu-vel-Killi, to Kambala Setti whose single ship
touched the island on its way to India. Taking the
baby from her, with the respect due to its royal origin,
Kambala Setti set sail from there on his homeward
jourijpy. On that day, at the darkest part of the night
and ^ery close to the shore, the boat capsized.^ Not «„
seeing the child after the accident the Setti duly reported
the loss of the baby to the king, who, in his anxiety and
occupatioft in directing the search of the baby, forgot
the IfestivcCl of Indra. Indra, in his turn, commanded,
through goddess Manimekhala that the city of Puhar be
swallowed up by the sea. An ancestor of your father
generations ago suffered shipwreck and was lost in the
sea, much like a golden needle in a rich carpet of gold, »
and was struggling for sewen days continuously without
26S
BOOK XXIX
losing life altogether. Understanding this by the
quiver in his white carpet, Indra commanded the goddess
to rescue, from suffering death in the sea, that one who
was to become a Buddha. She carried him out of the
sea in order that the Paramita} might receive fulfilment,
that the Dharma Chakra may keep revolving. Hearing
from the knowing Charanas (wanderers through the air)
that thqt was her habitual function, your father gave you
her • name. Your renunciation was that very day
intifnated to him in a dre^i with all the clearness of
reality. Since through her the city had been over-
whelmed, your mothers and myself retired to Kanchi for
your sake. Having heard this Manimekhalai said in
reply, after making a profound obeisance, ‘ even so said
Tivatilakai, who worships the golden seat of the Buddha,
to her.’
‘ In accordance therewith, I assumed another disguise
in that fair city (Vanji), and heard the varied teaching
of the sects, each system expounded according to
its own authoritative works {Nul, Sutra). I took
none of them really to heart as they were not acceptable,
and carried them just as I did the disguise I put on.
May the holy one therefore instruct me in the truth.*
Aravana Adigal assented and expounded the teaching of
• Buddjjism as follows : — •
‘ The first teacher is Jinendra; his instruments of
knowledge [Alavai) are but two, namely, faultless percep-
tion {Prattiyam or Pratyakshd) and inference JJCaruttu
or Anumand). Knowledge acquired by direct perception
^ The Perfections, generally ten but the number is sometimes given as eight
and even six. Tflese ten are (1) Da^ia (charity), (2) &ila (Purity of conduct),
(3) (Patience), (4) Kirya (Strenuousness), (5) (Medita-
tion), (6) (Intelligence), (7) (Employment of right means)
^(8) Framdh&na (Resoluteness), (9) Bala (Strength) and (10) Gmna (Know-
leSge). • *
206
MANIMEKHALAI
is taken to be SuUuitarvu {Pratyaks/m, peixeption).
Name {Nama), class {Jaii), quality (Gzma), and action
(Kriya), are excluded from this as they are obtainable in
inference {Anumana) as well. Inference by cause or
consequence, and commoir {Samanyd) inference are liable
to error. That which is free from error is inference from
result as from smoke, fire. All the other Pramanas'^
inasmuchas they are capable of being included in Karuttu
may be treated as Anumana. Other means of knowledge
are the following five, namely: — (i) Pakkam •.
Paksha-, proposition, also called Pratigna) ; (2) Hetu
(reason) ; (3) Tittantam (Sans. Drishimita, example, also
Udshamna) ; (4) Upanaya (application) ; and (5) Niga-
mana (conclusion). Of these Pakkam consists in saying
that this hill has fire in iL When you state, it is so
because it smokes^ you are stating the reason. If you add
just like a kitchen^ you are giving an example. To say
that the hill also smokes is to state the application
{Upanaya). If it has smoke it imist have fire is coming
to a conclusion.
That which has no fire can have no smoke, like
water, is the contrary concomitant of the proposition,
amd is negative application. Thus it serves as appli-
catio^n by contrariety — negative concomitance. When
the jeal reason {Hetu) is based on identity {Svabhuvd), »
the proposition or subject takes the form, sound is non-
eternal. When we urge, because it is artificial, we state
the attriljute of the subject {Paksha dharmd). ‘ What-
ever is made is non-eternal like a pot,’ is a similar case
{Sapaksha), with the example added. Whatever is not
eternal and not capable of being made like ether is the
^ In the absence of any specific recital of these in this context these must ^
refer to the six said ‘to be prevalent at the present time,’ in Book 27
above. ^
BOOK XXIX
207
counter case {Vipaksha with example) and gives the con-
comitance of contrariety. In negative pramana the
stateijient that in this open space there is no pot consti-
tutes the subject. ‘ Because it is not seen is the
attribute of the subject. ‘ As they do not exist, we have
not seen the horns of a rabbit is a similar example of
that method. When we say ‘whatever exists will be
seen lijje a myrabolam in the open hand ’ is a similar but
counter-statement. It is in this way that what is urged
as reason establishes facts..
If you ask what it is that smoke (as reason) esta-
blishes, the existence of smoke proves the existence of
fire by the positive concomitance, where there is smoke
there is always fire, and the negative concomitance there
is no smoke where there is no fire. If so, when one sees
before him smoke, the darkness proceeding straight from
it, or going up in spiral, as this is due to fire, when you
see something dark and smoky overhead you must infer
the existence of fire. If co-existence thus establishes
facts, then when one who had formerly seen an ass and a
woman at one place and at one time, sees an ass at
another time, he should infer the existence of a woman
then and there. No. This will not do.
If the negative concomitance will prove that thjre is
no siftoke where there is no fire, one who did not see in
the mane of an ass the tail of a fox because he saw no
tail of a dog, could rarely infer the existence of a dog’s
tail in another place where he saw the tail, of a fox.
Therefore even that is inadmissible. Upmthya (appli-
cation) and nigamana (conclusion), connected with the
drishtanta ^example) as they are, may be regarded as
included in it.
• Paksha (proposition). Mu (reason), drishtanta
(Example) are of two kinds, valid and in'wlid. Among
208
MAl^IIMEKHALAI
these, the valid proposition is that which has included in
it (i) the explicit subject possessed of attributes, and
(2) the changes that the plainly discernible attribute of
the conclusion undergoes when found elsewhere. For
example, to say that sound is either eternal or non-eternal
is a valid proposition. In this the subject possessed of
attributes is Sabda. Sadhyadharma (attribute of the con-
clusion) is its being either eternal or non-eternaj. The
reason (/?^/«) is of three kinds ; (i) being attributive to
the subject ; (2) becoming attributable to a similar sub-
ject and (3) becoming non-attributable to the opposite.
If sapaksiha (similarity of character) is to be esta-
blished, the attribute must, as stated in the proposition
{pakska), be ascribable generally {poduvahai or sS-manyd),
Sound is non-eternal like a pot. If its vipakska, con-
trary concomitance, is to be stated, whatever is not non-
eternal is not made like ether {(ikaiti). The fact of being
and the act of appearing as a result of the making, being
respectively attributable to the subject {pakshd) and the
example (sapa/cs/ia), and not so attributable to the con-
trary or negative concomitant, becomes the valid reason
for predication of non-eternality to sound.
Valid drishtmita (example) is of two kinds : —
Sadkarmya (similar character) and Vaidharmya (different
character). A Sadkarmya example is, sound js non-*
eternal like a pot when they exist together. Vaidharmya
example consists in the non-existence of the reason when
the conclusion does not exist. These constitute valid
me'ans oFproof.
Fallacious pakska (proposition), ketu (reason) and
edutlukkaitu {drishtanta or example) are the iol lowing: —
Fallacious propositions are of nine kinds: (i) Praiyaksha
viruddham, (2) ATZumana viruddkam, (3) Suvachana
v^ruddham, (4) Ldka vlrnddham, (5) Agama vir 7 iddh(M^
BOOK XXIX
209
(6) Aprasiddha viteshanam, (j) Aprasiddha viseskyam,
(8) Aprasiddha ubhaya^n, (9) Aprasiddha sambandham.
Of th^se (i) the first contradicts direct experience as in
‘ sound cannot be heard b}’ the ear (2) Annmafia
viruddham consists in making contrary inference as in
describing a non-eternal pot as eternal. (3) Suvachana
viruddham consists in contradictory speech as in des-
cribing £»ne’s own mother as a barren woman. (4) Loka
viruddham contradicts general experience as in saying
thalfthe moon is not the m^)on. (5) Agama viruddham
consists in making statements contradictory to accepted
books of authority as when the non-eternalist Vaiseshika
calls eternal that which is non-eternal. (6) Aprasiddha
viseshanam consists in not understanding that which is
provable by the opponent, as when a Bauddha tells the
eternalist Sankhya that sound is destructible. (7) Apra-
siddha viseshyam consists in a statement where the
proposition is not capable of predication to the opponent,
as when a Sankhya states to a Bauddha, who does not
believe in the existence of a soul, that the soul is capable
of understanding. (8) Aprasiddha ubhayam consists in
a statement which to the opponent is unacceptable either
as a proposition or as the conclusion; as when a'
Vaiseshika tells a Bauddha (who believes neithes in
•happiness nor in soul), that, for happiness and* all
else connected with it, the source of origin is the
soul. (9) Aprasiddha sambandham consists in proving
that which is already accepted by the oppocient, ^as
when a Bauddha is told that sound is non-’eternal—
a statement which does not require to be proved
to him. •
Similarly Hetuppoli or fallacious middle term is of
'three kinds : —
(i) or unproved;
?7 ■ * • • *
210
MAI5IIMEKHALAI
(s) AnaikUntikam or uncertain, when the lack of
truth of the middle term is recognized by the one party
only, ,
and
(3) Viruddham or contradictory, as when the truth
of the middle term is open to question.
Gf these the first Asiddham is of four forms, namely
(1) UbhayEsiddhain * •
(2) AnyathUsiddham
(3) Siddhasiddham ^ ^
and
(4) AsrayUsiddham.
Of these four, the first is where the predicate or the
middle term is not acceptable as true to both the parties,
as when it is said,
that sound is a eternal
because it is seen.
(2) AnyathEstddham is where the middle term is
not recognized by the opposing party, as when it is said
that :
„ Sound is a product of evolution
And therefore non-eternal.
It sgems unproved to the Sankhya who does not admit s
that sound is a product of evolution, but is merely a
reflex of that which is in the mind ; as in the example :
^ Sound is a product of evolution
n Therefore it is not eternal.
The fact of evolution being no more than the expression
of the speaker’s understanding, it will not be acceptable
as a reason to the Sankhya.
(3) Siddha-asiddham consists in the reason or the''
middle term being doubtful in drawing a conclusion, as
BOOK XXIX
211
when that which appears before one may be taken to be
either vapour or mist, it is actually taken to be smoke,
and fr^ra that, the conclusion is drawn that there must be
fire behind.
(4) Asraya-siddham is to prove to the opponent
the non-existence of the Dharmin or the middle term as
when one states that
, Ether (or dkaio) is a substance
. Because it has the quality of sound,
the* conclusion is unprovf d to him who believes that
ether is not a substance.
Anaikantikam similarly is of six forms : —
(1) Sadhd,rana\
(2) AsadMrana]
(3) Sapakkaikade'saviruddha Vipakkavyapi ;
(4) Vipakkaika desaviruddka SapakkavyUpi ;
(5) U apiyikadlsaviruddha zxA
(6) Viruddha VyabhicJmri.
Of these, Sadharana consists in the common hctu or
middle term being uncertain, both in the Sapaksha and
in the Vipaksha (a similar and the counter case), as in
the example > •
Sound is non-eternal
Because it is cognizable. •
The Equality of cognizability is a common quality of
things eternal and things non-eternal. It is cognizable
to be non-eternal as in the case of a pot, a product ; it is
cognizable to be eternal as in the case of ether# •
(2) AsMharam is that in which the hUu or the
reason whi^ is contemplated is non-existent either ip
the similar case or in the counterxase, as in the example *
Sound is eternal
• Because it is audible^ •
212
MAliflMEKHALAI
The reason of audibility, if it exists in the minor
term, does not exist in the Sapaksha or Vipaksha or
the exceptional. In other words, it is not general ejjough,
and therefore it becomes doubtful and uncertain.
(3) Sa-pakkaikadesaviruddhavipakkavyapi consists
in the hetu or the reason or the middle term abiding in
some of the things homogeneous with and in all of the
things heterogeneous with the major term, as when it is
said :
Sound is the product of effort ^
Because it is non-eternal.
Here the reason or the middle term while it exists in
lightning and ether ipikasd) both of which are not products
of effort, it abides in lightning, but is not seen in aka'sa,
and therefore it is non-eternal. Since it resembles the
pot it may get destroyed and therefore become a product
of effort, or whether it will get destroyed as in the case of
lightning and will not be the product of effort. Thus it
becomes open to doubt.
(4) Vipakkaikade'saroiruddhi-sapakkavyapi consists in
the hetu or the middle term while it abides in a part of
Jthings heterogeneous, it abides in all things homogeneous
with it, as when it is said :
Sound is the product of effort ,
Because it is non-eternal.
The reason or the middle term non-eternal exists in
:ska'sa anji lightning which are heterogeneous with being
th€ prod'uct, while it shows itself in lightning and does
not in akaia. In the sapaksha as in the case of the pot,
it abides in all things. Therefore it beconses doubtful
whether being non-eternal as in lightning, it will not
show itself as a product, or being non-eternal as a pot if
will still appear as a product of effort. '
213
BOOK XXIX
( 5 ) U paya.ikadesviruddhi consists in the reason or the
middle term abiding in some of the homogeneous and
some pf the heterogeneous things from the major term as
when it is said :
Sound is eternal
Because it is non-corporeal.
In this example the middle term non-corporeality on
•the side of eternal is found in akaia and in the minute
atoms which are homogeneous with things eternal, and
mat;e them incorporeal. Similarly in the case of things
heterogeneous with those that are eternal as a pot or
happiness. This incorporeality abides in happiness and
does not in a pot. Therefore whether the middle term
abides only in some of the things it cannot be treated as
anaiaku,ntikam as it leads to the doubt whether things
incorporeal are eternal like akssa or non-eternal like
happiness.
(6) F iruddhavyabhichari consists in the middle term
not being distinctly the reason, for the thesis supports
even that which is contradictory to the thesis, as in the
example :
Sound is eternal ,
Because it is the product of effort.
» Whiie this may be regarded as valid in so far, as it
applies to the pot, etc., which are homogeneous as being
products of effort, sound is eternal because it is audible
as is the character of sound, is also equally va^id. Since
the validity is equally good for both the theSis an3 its
contradictory, it ceases to be AikUntika (peculiar).
Virudiha is of four kinds, namely ; —
(1) Dharmasvarupa Vipariia Sudhanam : wliere in the
* statement of the Faksha or Dharmm^ the major term is contra-
dictory to the Sddkana or the middle term ; •
214
MANIMEKHALAl
(2) DkarmamiSsha-vipartia S&dhanam : where the DharmH'-
visesha or the attribute or the predicate implied in the major
term is contradictory to the middle term, Sddha 7 ia ;
(3) DharmasvarUpa-vipanta SMkanam : where the form of
the minor term is contradictory to the Sdd/m72a or the middle
term ; and
(4) Dharfnaviiisha-viparzia SMhaTzaTTz : when the predicate
implied in the minor term is contradictory to the StidhaTia or the
middle term.
Of these the first is found when in the hetu ^ ' the
middle term, the major ^erm is faulty, as in '^he
example : —
Sound is eternal
Because it is a product.
In this the character of being a product implies that
sound is non-eternal. Therefore the hlhi or reason of
being a product establishes the non-eternality which is
contradictory to the eternality stated in the middle term.
Hence the contradiction between the two.
(2) The second consists in the reason or the hetu
offered being contradictory to the attribute implied in
the major term, Sadhyadharma ; for example : —
The eyes and other instruments of sense are for the
service of something else.
Because they are composed of particles
^ Like bed, seat, etc.
Of these the hetu or the middle term * being com-
posed of particles ' (like bed, seat, etc., which are of
service to ^someone else) make the eye and other organs
of sgnse ako serviceable to someone else. This someone
else like the occupant of a bed or seat is made one dis-
tinct from the eye and other organs of sense, and thus
the soul ; a thing without organs is made info a thing
with organs. This is contradictory _to the actual attri-
butes of the major term,* which is Atmm here, and not
BOOK XXIX
215
body merely ; thus it makes the soul which is without
any sense organs possessed of organs, and constitutes
a cory:radiction between the major term and the middle
term.
(3) The third consists in the hetu or the middle
term by itself contradicting the form of the minor term,
as in the example ; —
. •Bhava (existence) is substance, but not action, nor has
• it quality.
• Whatever substance ^has both quality and is capable
of action is different like the character of ss.ma.nya
(generality).
The hetu or the middle term which illustrates that
substance, quality and character being combined in it,
Unmai {Bhava or existence) is stated to be something
distinct. This is sUmanya {podu) which gives the reason
for the existence of the three. This Unmai {Bhava or
existence) not being found in the Sadhya or the major
term and the DrishtSnta or example, but not containing
the attributes of Snmanya or the generality nor any other
attribute, what is stated to exist in the Dharmin or the
minor term, is made to be non-existent, and thus
becomes contradictory.
The fourth consists in the establishment of the jron-
■» existence of the attributes in the Dhartnin or the nunor
term. In the example given above, the Bhava or exis-
tence is the doing and the quality of the doer. Since
this is contradicted, it may also be taken as contradicting
that which is predicated in the middle term. *
, FALLACIOUS EXAMPLE
These are what are called Dhristantabhasa or
•examples containing fallacies. It was already stated that
l^hyishtcLnta is of two kindsj# namely, iiodhaywya
216
MANIMEKHALAI
Vaidharmya (or homogeneous and heterogeneous). Of
these the former is of five kinds : —
(1) Sadhanadkarmavikalam or imperfect micidle ;
(2) Sadhyadharmavikalanii defective major term ;
(3) Ubhayadharmavikalani, defective major and
middle ;
(4) Ananvayant^ non-concomitance, and
(5) Vipartta-anvayam (contradictory concomitance)
*
Similarly heterogeneous sample is also of fivekitids,
namely : —
(1) Sadhya-avyavriti (not heterogeneous from the
opposite of the major term) ;
(2) Sadhana-avyavytli (not heterogeneous from the
opposite of the middle term) ;
(3) Ubhaya-avyavrtii (heterogeneous from neither
the opposite of the middle term nor the opposite of the
major term) ;
(4) Avyatirekha (a heterogeneons example showing
the absence of disconnection between the middle term
and the major term) ;
^ (5) Viparttavytirekha (a heterogeneous example
showing the absence of an inverse disconnection between
the taiddle term and the major term).
(i) Of these Sadhanadharmavikalani consists*!?! the
example exhibiting a defective middle term, as in the
example,
Soand is eternal
Because whatever has no corporeal form is eternal
Therefore what is seen is paramai}u(p}xAv 7 \s^\^ atom).
In this the example paramanu being eternal and at
the same time corporeal contains to the full the character
of the major tehin, but is defective in not being possessed
BOOK XXIX
217
of the character of the Ssdhanadharma, or the middle
term,
^2) Sadhyadharmavikalam] in the example offered
the character of the major term is defective, as in
Sound is eternal
Because it is non-corporeal
Whatever is non-corporeal is eternal, as Buddhi
(intelligence).
• •
In the example Buddhi (intelligence) which is brought
in aft an illustration being ^non-corporeal and therefore
being non-eternal at the same time, shows to the full the
non- corporeality, which is the character of the Sadkana
or the middle term, being defective in eternality, which
is the predicate of the major.
(3) Ubhayadharmavikalam ; in the example given
both the major and the middle are found defective. This
is of two kinds. Sat and A sat. Example of Sat is, in a
thing that exists that which is predicated shows both a
defective major and a defective middle, as in the
example.
Sound is eternal
Because it is non-corporeal
Whatever is non-corporeal is eternal like a pot. ,
Here the pot, which is brought in as an example
» bein^a product, does not partake of the charact^ of
the eternal as predicated in the major, nor of the charac-
ter of non-corporeality predicated in the middle ; thus it
shows itself to be defective both in respect of |he major
and in respect of the middle. AsadubkayadharfnavikMam
shows a similar double defect in a thing non-existent, as
in the exanfple
Sound is non-eternal
• Because it is corporeal
* Whatever is corporeal is non-eternal like nknia (ether).
28
218
MAIiTIMEKHALAI
In this the example- AMsa does not partake of the
character of non-eternality predicated in the major, nor
the corporeality predicated in the middle, to hijn who
states that AMsa is non-existent. On the other hand, to
one who believes in Aka'sa being existent, it is eternal,
and non-corporeal. Therefore to him also it is defective
both in respect of the major and in respect of the middle.
(4) Ananvayam (non-concomitance in example)
consists in the middle and the major, without stating the
connection between the two,^exhibiting the real character
of both, as in the example,
Sound is not eternal
Because it is a product
A pot is a product and non-eternal.
In this example the general concomitance that ‘ what-
ever is a product is not eternal ’ not being stated, the
concomitance between the major and the middle is not
made clear.
(5) Vzpartia-anvayam (the contradictory concomit-
ance). This consists in establishing concomitance
merely by the concomitance of the example with that
which is predicated in the major term, as in the example,
*' Sound is non-eternal
Because it is a product
‘ Whatever is not eternal is a product.
r
In saying so, concomitance fails, because the universal
statement whatever is a product is not eternal, is not
stated, and therefore it fails in as much as the major is
nor drawn as a conclusion from the middle ; on the
contrary, the statement of universal concomitance is
made from the major term. The defect consists in this ;
what is predicated in the major may be more extensive
than that which is stated in the middle term, as in what- ^
ever is not eternal is a pr£)duct,
BOOK XXIX
219
(1) SaMya-avySvrf^i consists in the example being
incompatible with that which is predicated in the middle
while it is not so with what is predicated in the major ;
as in the example : —
Sound is eternal
Because it is non-corporeal
Whatever is non-eternal is also not non-corporeal
, ^ as Paramdnu,
In t^his example, the paramUnu which is brought in as an
example, being eternal and corporeal as well, it is
incompatible with the non-corporeality predicated in the
middle, while it is compatible with the eternality predi-
cated in the major.
(2) Ssdkana-avynvrtfi consists in the example being
incompatible with what is predicated in the major w hile
it is not so with that which is predicated in the middle ;
as in the example,
Sound is eternal
Because it is non-corporeal
Whatever is not eternal is also not non-corporeal,
like Kaima.
Here the heterogeneous example Karma, while it it
non-corporeal, is at the same time not eternal. There-
** fore it is incompatible with the eternality predicatld in
the major and is compatible with the non-corporeality
predicated in the middle.
(3) In Ubhaya-avyn,vrtti the heterogeneous example
brought in for illustration while being incompatible ^ith
what is predicated in the middle term and the major is
of two kinds
(i) Ubhaya-avyavrtti in that which exists and (ii)
* Ubhaya-avyavrtti in that which does not. The former is
a heterogeneous example in things that £xist which do
220
MANIMEKHALAi
not show incompatibility with the predicate of the major
and the middle, as in the example : —
Sound is eternal ,
Because it is non-corporeal
Whatever is non-eternal is also not non-corporeal
like Akaia.
In this Akasa that is brought in as a heterogeneous
example is eternal and non-corporeal to him that believes
in its being a substance. Therefore the eternality predi-
cated in the major and the pon-corporeality predicSted
in the middle are both of them not incompatible. But
to him that does not believe in its being a substance, in
the example,
Sound is non-eternal
Because it is corporeal
Whatever is non-eternal is also not corporeal like
Aku^a.
In this, to him that says that AkU'sa is not a substance, as
it is itself non-existent, the noo-eternality in the major
and the corporeality in the middle are both neither
compatible nor incompatible.
(4) Avyatirekha where that which is predicated in
the major being non-existent, the non-existence of that
whick is predicated in the middle is not stated, as in the
exantple, **
Sound is eternal
Because it is a product
• Whatever is non-eternal, it is also not a non-
product.
Without making an explicit statement as the above when
one asserts that in a pot, both the character of being a
product and of the non-eternality exist, it is Viparlta-
vyaiirekha in .heterogeneous example. ViparJiavyatf-
221
BOOK XXK
rekha consists in a statement of non-compatibility in
illogical order, as in the example,
^ Sound is eternal
Because it is corporeal.
In this instead of stating that wherever eternality does
not exist there corporeality also does not exist, but
stating instead, that wherever there is not corporeality
.there eternality also does not exist. In this way of
stating it, there is an incompatibility of Vyatirekha.
•By the fallacious reasoning, which has been thus
expounded, understand clearly the character of fallacious
inference, and by applying this method, make sure of
whatever you know to be correct knowledge.
BOOK XXX
Manimekhalai who had already learnt all that had
happened in her previous birth, after having taken upon
herself the duty of giving gifts and walking in the path of
right conduct, worshipped three several times the triple
jewel of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, and placed herself
exclusively under the protection of Buddha Dharma.
Aravana Adigal who was to expound to her the righteous
path of the Dharma said : ‘ At the time when the world
should be full of beings poor in understanding, the
• Budtiha, at the earnest entreaty of all the celestial beings
of the Tushitaloka, ^ each in his turn, appeared leaving
that heaven of joy empty ; then he sat at the foot of the
Bodhi-tree, and, conquering the enemy Mara,»heczmt a
hero. The good teaching of the ‘ Four Truths ’ which
the beautiful hero imparted, after having pulled up by the
root the tLree faults, were taught with ineffable benefi-
cence in the past by innumerable other Buddhas. These
^ The Heaven of nr^lloyed bliss. •
222
MAINIIMEKHALAI
truths provide the means of crossing the ocean of existence
by destroying the twelve Nidmias. These latter appear
one from the other in order as cause and effect, and Joeing
capable of reappearance as consequent upon that which is
before it, .assume the form of a never-ending circle.
When in this order of cause and consequence the first
ceases to exist, the next follows in cessation ; when it
comes into existence, that which follows it does^so in-,
evitably. So these are properly described as a chaitr of
causes and conditions. Tljey may equally well ''be
regarded as substance and attribute. Thus arranged
these twelve Nidanas fall into four divisions, showing
three joints. Appearance in birth or rebirth is of three
kinds (human, heavenly or of the nether world), and is
of three divisions in time, past, present and future. These
also produce the faults, deeds and their consequences,
and are impermanent and cause only sorrow. When one
gets to understand this character of these Nidanas, he
knows what will assure him the permanence of release
[Nirvana).
Further it becomes the means for the cultivation of
the Four Truths, and is constituted of the five Skandkas.
It is capable of being argued in the six forms beginning
with 4;he ‘ assertion of truth ’. It results in the ‘ four ’
formr, of excellence. It is open to question in four.Jvays
and being capable of respective answers in four ways
similarly. It is without origin and without end. It is
a series obcontinuous becoming without ever reaching
finafdestruction. It neither does, nor can it be described
as being done. It is neither self nor is it possessed by
another self. It is nothing that is gone, notMng that is
to come. It cannot be brought to an end, nor is it to end
itself. It is itself the result of the deed, birth and cessa-
tion. Such is'‘the nature of the twelve causes and condi-
BOOK XXX
223
tions beginning with ignorance, and called the Nidanas.
These 'twelve are : —
^i) Ignorance {Pedamai, Sans. Avidyd).
(2) Action {Seykai, Sans. Karma).
(3) Consciousness {Unarvu, Sans. Vignand).
(4) Name and form {Aru-uru, Sans. Namarupa).
(5) Six organ^of sense {Vayil, Sans. Shadayatana).
(6} Contact (Kru, Sans. Sparta).
• (7) Sensation {Nztharvu, Sa.ns. Vedana).
• (8) Thirst or craving Sans. Trishna).
(9) Attachment Sans. Upadmia).
(10) Becoming or existence (Pavam, Sans. Bkava).
(11) Birth (r<7 nam., Sans. Jaii).
(12) The result of action, old age and dtzth{Vmaip-
payan. Sans. Jaramaranam).
If people understand the twelve-fold nature of the
chain of cause and effect, they then understand the
supreme truth and will enjoy permanent bliss. If they
do not, they are indentured to suffer in the depths of
hell. I
^ The following exposition of the Nidanas based on the Pali texts and the
Maddhyamanikaya by the latest writer on the Doctrine of Bnddba,
Dr. George Grimm, may be compared with the exposition given in the Mani-
mekhalai
* Now we only need to run through the whole formula in its toti^ity.
*^n dependence on ignorance— arises the processes— that is the
organic processes, especially those of senses, sankhara. *
* In dependence on the processes (of life, evSpecially on the activities of
thesense.s}, arises consciousness,
Tn dependence on consciousness, arises the corporeal organism—
rupa, • ^
^ In dependence on the corporeal organism, arise the six organs of
mxi&^saldyatana.
' In depegdence on the six organs of sense, arises contact—
* In dependence on contact, arises sensation — vedand,
‘ In dependence on sensation, arises thirst—
* In dependence on thirst, arises grasping—
^ ‘ In dependence on grasping, arises becoming—
‘ |n dependence on becoming, arise® birth— •
224 MAlillMeKHALAI
(I'i Ignorance consists in not understanding what
was explained above, in being liable to delusion" and m
believing in what one hears to the neglect of that which
one is able to see for himself, as believing m the exis-
tence of the horns of a rabbit because someone else says
they worlds, the world of life is illimi-
table, and Iwing beings “ “ f f
are men, gods. Brahmas, the inhabitants of hellythe
crowd of animals and spirits.. According to good deeds
and bad, life takes its birth in one or other of these.
Ever since it assumes the form of embryo, the resul o
these deeds will show themselves either in the happiness
o mind or in anxiety of suffering. Of these evil deeds^
killing, theft and evil desire show themselves as evils
snrinSng in the body. Lying, speaking ill of others,
Swords and useless talk, these four .show themselves
t evils of speech. Desire, anger and illusion are
three deeds of evil that arise in the mind. Ihese ten
- In clepenclcnce 0.1 birth arises old age and death, sorrow, lamentation,
min, grief, and entire sum of suffering.”^ _
, “ Ihns com s .. A ' show the relation of the single links m a
The Buddha m it wisl - - ^ which they condition themselves
burely^abslract manner, m t m . y ^ death, ^rrow,
internally and in tliemp r- ^ ‘ machine. Such an organis'ffi must
witha*corporeal organism, as . 1 .. ■ ' ■ — ^ _ nothing, but a special
reborn, therefore it p-^^^ ’dltred by t mid
case of bemmng. becoming ibhavaicwM). Such
grasping is ““ditioirtd by sensation is the consequence
thirsj^an ap^ar therefore it presupposes c»-gans
of contact between the f d an o ' ^^,^1 organism for
their supporter. Sncli^ g consciousness is only
only especially of the activiUes
onrsen's But these are only set going, where exists as to the ,
nnwholesomeness of their r^ults._ _ 289-90)."
BOOK XXX
225
the wise would avoid. If they should fail to do so, they
would ‘be born as animals or spirits or beings of the
nether world, and make themselves liable to extreme
anxiety of mind and suffering. Good men^ on the
contrary, would avoid these ten, and assuming the good
discipline {Stlam) and taking upon themselves to do
deeds of charity {Danain), will be born in the three
higher ^classes of beings, such as the Dems (gods), men
’or Brahmas, and live a life of enjoyment of happiness as
a result of good deeds.
(3) Consciousness {(^narvu) consists in feeling like
one in sleep, without the feeling leading to any action,
or to any satisfaction.
(4) Name and form {Aru-uru) consists in that
which has the feeling described above, and constituting
life and body.
(5) Organs of sense {Vnyil) are, on examination,
those that carry consciousness to the mind ( Vignana or
Ullam).
(6) Contact {Urii) consists in Vigtimta and the
organs of sense experiencing touch with other things
(veru pulangal).
(7) Sensation {NiAiarvu) consists in the mind or
VignSna enjoying that of which it has become conscious.
• ^(8) Thirst or craving {Vetkai) consists in not^eel-
ing satisfied with that which is thus enjoyed.
(9) Attachment \Parm^ consists in the desire for
enjoyment impelling one into action.
^ The Sllaz, according to the Banddhas, are five or ten. They are
(1) not killing *(2) not lying, (3) not stealing, (4) no evil desire, (5) non-
acceptance of gifts. The.se are the five principal ones. Not assuming high
^ seats or beds, not wearing unguents or rich garments, not touching gold and
silver, etc., not enjoying music, dancing, etc., eating before sun-rise. These
are sub.sidiary and not obligatory on all, , •
29 * " . •
to
226
manimEkhalai
(lo) Becoming {Pavam) consists in the collection
of deeds indicating the consequence to whidh each
leads.
(it) Birth (Tdmal) consists in the result of deeds
leading to the conscious taking of birth in one or other
of the six forms of birth in the inevitable chain of cause
and effect.
(12) Disease {Pint) consists in the suffering of the
body by a change from its natural condition in conse-
quence of the result of deeds. Old age {Muppn) consists
in the loosening of the body as one draws nearer and
nearer to the end. Death {Sukkadit) ultimately consists
in the human body, composed of life and body, dis-
appearing as the setting sun.
From ignorance arises action ; from action springs
consciousness ; from consciousness comes ideas of name
and form ; from name and form spring the organs of
sense ; through organs of sense contact becomes
possible ; contact results in sensation or experience ;
experience produces desire ; from desire springs attach-
ment ; from attachment comes into existence collection
of deeds ; as a result of this collective deed arise other
Various forms of birth ; birth inevitably brings along
with^ it age, disease and death, and the consequent
anxigty and the feeling of incapacity to get rid jDf it. #
This never-ending suffering is the ultimate result. In
such a never-ending circle of experience, when ignorance
ceases, ac|ion will cease ; with action consciousness will
cealS ; with consciousness notions of name and form
will cease; with the cessation of name and form, organs
of sense will cease ; with the cessation of the^ organs of
sense, contact will cease ; contact ceasing, sensation or
experience will cease ; with sensation or experience “
desire will cease ; desire., ceasing to exist, there will b’e
BOOK XXX
227
no attachment ; without attachment, there is no accumu-
lation df deeds ; without the accumulated mass of deed,
there will be no becoming ; with the cessation of
becoming, there will be no birth, no disease, no age, no
death, and in consequence, no anxiety and no helpless-
ness. Thus this never-ending series of suffering will
be destroyed.
Of these twelve nidanas, the first two ignorance and
actipn are regarded as belonging to the first section. All
thoise that follow spring from these two. The following
five, namely, name and f6rm, organs of sense, contact
and experience, these five, as springing from the former
two, are regarded as constituting the second division.
Thirst, attachment, and the collection of deeds constitute
the third division as they result as evil in the enjoyment
of the previous five, and, in consequence, as action
resulting therefrom. It is from the folly of desire
and consequent attachment that becoming arises.
The fourth division includes birth, disease, age and
death, since these four are experienced as a result
of birth.
Action is the cause of birth and consciousness springs
out of it. Where these two meet they mark the fir^
conjunction. Where sensation and craving meet, it
^ marks the second conjunction. The third junction (SDmes
in where the accumulation of deeds results in Birth.
Thus are marked the three points of junction in this
chain of twelve causes and conditions.
The three forms of birth are those of men, 'godg^^nd
animals. These resultfrom the consciousness in previous
birth as a result of the conformations springing out of
ignorance. This happens either from the delusion that
• this kind of birth is actually cessation of birth, or the
taking of birth in a new form without the^consciousness,
228 MANIMfeKHALAI
or the new birth coming with consciousness and the new
form existing together. The three times are the past,
present and future. Of these the past includes ignwance
and action. To the present refer consciousness, name
and form, the organs of sense, contact, sensation, thirst
or craving, the becoming and birth. To the future
belong birth, disease, age and death. The resulting
anxiety and helplessness are evils that spring out of the
previous series of present action.
Desire, attachment and ignorance, these and 4he
birth resulting therefrom, *^constitute action in the
present and cause future birth. Consciousness, name
and form, organs of sense, contact, sensation or ex-
perience, birth, age, disease, and death, these are
the consequential experience in life, both present and
future. These are full of evil, of deeds and of conse-
quences resulting from these deeds, and thus consti-
tute suffering. Being such, they are all impermanent.
While the nature of release {Vtdu) consists in the
understanding that there is nothing like soul in anything
existing.^ Consciousness, name and form, the organs
of sense, contact, sensation, birth, disease, age and
death, with the resulting anxiety and helplessness,
these constitute disease. For this disease the causes
are ignorance, action, desire, attachment and the collec-
tion of deeds. For suffering and birth, attachment
is the cause ; for bliss and cessation of birth, non-
attachment is the cause. Words that embody this idea
con'Stitute ''the ‘ Four Truths ’, namely, suffering, the
^ This it must be noted refers to &iman or individual sel^ not Atman,
the Universal self. This is an improvement introduced by the Satyasiddhi
School of Buddhism, according to Chinese authority, by Harivarman, the
chiei disciple of Kumara labdha\ Yamakami Sogen’s Systmis of
Buddhist Thought^ 178. *
229
BOOK XXK
cause o£ suffering, removal of suffering, and the way to
remove* suffering.
Tj?.ere are four kinds of questions and answers : —
(i) To give a deliberate reply; (2) to separate the
component parts of an issue and answer these separately ;
(3) to answer by a counter question ; and (4) to keep
silence in answer to a question.
^ To^ question whether a thing that comes into exist-
ence will also go out of existence, if the answer is
‘ it*will ’ it is to give a deliberate reply.
To a question whether a dead man will be born again
or no, the enquiry whether in life he was without attach-
ment or no, is to answer by separating the issues involved,
and giving separate answers to it.
To a question whether it is the seed that is first or
the palm-tree, the enquiry which seed and which parti-
cular tree, is answer by a counter question.
To a question whether ‘ the sky flower ’ is new or old,
silence is the best answer ; this is one way of getting
round an inconvenient question.
Bondage and release result from the Skandhas (aggre-
gates of things). There is no agent outside entitled to
bring them into contact. For the Skandhas and their
manifestations as described above, the cause is the gjroup
• of tliree evils ; desire, anger and illusion. Examined
separately and understand that everything is imperman-
ent, full of suffering, without a soul and unclean ; thus
treating it, give up desire. Realizing that friendliness,
kindliness, and (joy at the well-being of creatures) consti-
tutes the best attitude of mind, give up anger. By the
practice of Clearing {iruti), mentation [chintand), experi-
encing in mind {bhavand) and realizing in vision {darsana),
•deliberate, realize and give up all illusion. In these four
vfays get rid of the darkness of«mind. •
230 MAlillMEKHALAl
In these auspicious words, free from inconsistency
Aravana Adigal exhibited the illuminating lamp of
knowledge. Manimekhalai, having assumed the habit of
an ascetic ta-pasi and having heard the excellent exposi-
tion of the Dhamta, devoted herself to penance in order
that she may get rid of the bondage of birth.
INDEX
BY
• R. GoPALAN, M.A.
.(N'ote.—The numbers in thick type refer to the text of the poem.)
Achala, 144.
Abhanjika, 140.
Adirai, .149, 150, 152.
Adiyarkktftiallar, on the require-
meifts of a Kappiyam, 2.
Agagya, in, 114.
Agastya, references to in Manime-
khalai, 26, 27, 28, 145, 167. ‘
Agni, love of, 156.
Ahalya, story of, in Manimekhalai,
28 ; Indra’s love to, 156.
Ahananuru^ 48.
Aindravihara, at Kaveripattinam,
^ 199.
Ajivakas, 55, 56, 193.
Akshapada, 68«, 101, 102, 110.
Amarasundari, 182.
Ambikapati, 11.
Amndapati, 136.
Amuda-Surabi, 138.
Andhra country, teaching of Sunya-
vada in, by Nagarjuna, 102.
Aniruddha, 29.
Appar, itenerary of, 46.
Annradhapura, 102.
Aputra, human element in, 25-26,
140 ; hist, of, 143flf, 165, 180.
Aravana Adigal, of Dignaga in, 99 ;
anticipations of/ teachings, 93, 94,
112, 113, 117, 136, 140, 141, 143, 147,
165, 178, 180, 204, 205, 221-230.
A§vagosha, philosophical schools at
• the time of, 68«.
Attipati, 133.
Avanti, 133 ; Smiths from, 159.
B
Banas, family of, 30.
Banasura, 29.
Bhagavata, 29.
Bhagavatpada, 61 .
Bbarata, 187. ^
Bhaskara, 61.
Bhatta, 61.
Bhavadasa, 60, 61.
^Bhumichandra, 149, 180.
Bhutavadi, 198.
Bnuti, 145,
• * %
i Bodhayana, 60, 61 ; identity with
i Vrttikara, 62 ; Thibaut’s views on,
I 64 Keith on, 66«.
j Bodhidharma, Dhyana School of, 84.
! Brahmadatta, 61.
! Brahma Dharma, 133, 164.
I Brahmavadi, 192.
I Brkatkatka, 30.
I Buddha, 1, 132, 137.
i Buddha’s birth, hour of, 52, 138, 140,
i 166.
i Buddha-seat, 132, 137, 163, 165, 183,
184, 185, 199.
C
Chakravala Kottam , Description of,
125-6, 148, 154,* 165, 180,
Champa, 118.
Champapati, 27, 111, 129, 180;
I Temple of, 53, 54, 157, 158, 163.
166.
I Chandradatta, 150, 152.
Chandragupta, 78.
Chitrapati, 112, 116; Soliloqy of,
155-7, 175, 177.
D
Devasvamin, GO, 61.
Dharmachakra, 205.
Dharmadatta, 169, 170.
Dharmada Vana, 202.
Dharmakirti, 110.
Dharmapala, 85. _
Dhavalamalai, 148. *
Dhrishidniabkasa, 215. ^
Dhyana, School of, 84.
Dignaga, career and date of 79, 80.
Dignaga and the author of Mani-
mekhalai, relative position of,
Jacobi on, 92, 93, 96-^.
Dignaga and the a€thorslf?p of
NyayapraveSa 108-110.
Divyavadana, 55.
Drishidnta^ kinds of, 208.
Drishtivisha, 133, 163.
Durga, 167.
Durjaya, 131, 136, 141.
E
j EJpphant-hungei;^ 154, 160,
■m ■ :
232
maijiimEkhalai
G
Gajabahu. 40 ; Ceylon tradition ol, on
Chola Capital, 36.
GSmukapoycfli. 1^.
Gosala, 55, 55;^. 194//.
Grdhrakuta, 130,
Grimm (G.), 104//; on tne NiMnas,
223//, 244//* _ ,, rl'itft
Gurjaras, reference to £Uid tlie date
of Manimeklialai, oo, O'**
H
Haraprasad ^|?tn, 68.
Harivarman, 82, 225//.
I-ienderson, C. A., 47. <
Hetu- Vidya-NyS^yctdvd^n't Sastni, 109.
Himalayas, planting of the bow on,
HhiM-Tsang, 84, 102, 103.
Idavayam-Rishabaka (?) 139.
liambhuti, 143.
llafgS^ai. 3 ; Contemporaneity
‘ of \vitli Rattan, IS.
Indra, festival to, 23, 112, 114, 115,
129, 177, 135; curse of, 204, 132,
139 ; love to Abalya of, 156.
TTsing, 109, 110.
Jacobi, criticism of the views of,
" 92-106.
Jaimini, 159.
Jananutra, 183.
JinencTra, ‘205.
r
K
Kaccbayanagara, 13_6*
Kadalkonda Kakandi Nadu, 48, 49.
Kakandan, 2§i, 167,169.
Kak'-Hi, 167,^'
Kakandi -Nadu 49.
Kalahastl, 46.
Kaiar Killi, 18.
Kalavegam, 119. . ^ „
Kali, temple of, in Chakravala
k6ttain,125.
Kalinga, country of, 187*
Kalingi(K), 47. ^ *
Kamba^a Setty, 19, JSS, 20#, ^
Kanaka, 189.
Kancliaiia, 113, 161, 102,171.
Kanclii ; under Xlam-Kilu, lo, 21,
41 ; described in Manimekhalai,
20 21, 153 ; school of logic in, 80,
165 ; famine at, 165, 20! rfeeding
of poor by Manimekhalai, 203-4 ;
Chaitya at, 202.
Kannaki, 85, 180.
Kannaki, image of at Van^i, 186.
Kantama, 28, 111.
Kantaii, 167.
Kapila, city of, 187, 188.
Kapila - Kapilavastu, 20V
Karalar, 131. •
Karii'ala, age of, 35, 49, 115, 12#.
fKarikkarai, 47.
Karivarti, battle of,18, 20, 41 ; identifi-
cation of, 43, 159. __
Karikkarai IJdaiya Nayanar, 47.
Kaihasarit Sdgara, 30.
Kau.4ika, 118.
Kavera. 27.
Kaveri, origin of, 27. 28.^^
krwerlpattinara Pnhar, 112, 114,
130, 134, 140, 170, 181, 185, 188,199.
Kayahkarai, 133, 164, 181.
Kavaf^andikal, 113, 149-150; story
158, 161,162, 163,
171.
Ke^iakanibala, 1 44.
Killi, 176, 180, 185.
Knowledge, instruments ot, accoici-
ing to lineadra, 205, 206.
Korkai, 143.
Kdvalan, 117, 120, 171.
Krishna, reference to, 30, 159.
Krtakoti, 57. 58, 59, 60, 61; identifi-
cation 62, 189.
Kiiccharakiidi^ai , S3 .
Kumar a, 187.
Kumaralabdha,, 82, 228. <
Kumari, 28,^143.
KufidalakBi, 1.
Kuttuvar, ruler of, 200.
I^akshmi, 131, 135, 137.
Lakshmi, Goddess, reference to, 121.
Lanka, 200.
M
Madhavi, UZ, 116, 137. 141, 155.165.
171, m.
Madura, in the age of Sengnttwvau,
20, 170 ; destruction of, 187,
Madurapati, Goddess of, 187.
Magadha, jewellers from, 159.
Mahabali, 30, 159.
r
index
233
Mahabharata, reference to incidents
from, if? Manimekhalai, 29.
Mahayana, antiquity of the teaching
of, 102.
Mahratft,, smiths from, 159.
Manimekhala, Goddess of, 112, 124,
129, 134, 155, 163, 177, 185 ; Temple
to; 203, 204.
Manimekhalai, the poem, 1~12 ; its
affinity to the Silappadhikaram, 4,
7, 12 ; main incidents of , 4, 5 ; pur-
pose of author, 8 ; a Sangam work,
11, 12*; jjow far historical, 12-34 ;
* miraculous element in, 15, 23-4 ;
reference to forms of Hinduism in,
22# infusion of Sanskrit culture in,
26, 27-32 ; astronomical details in,g
51-2 ; philosophical systems in, 54-
85 ; resume of discussion of views,
85-107 ; Jacobi on the upper limit
of the age of, 97 : Manimekhalai,
in the crystal chamber, 121 ; in i
Manipailavam, 131-140 ; realization
of tile previous existence by, 133-4 ;
teaching of, 137 ; encounter with
Tivatilakai, 137-140 ; address of
Aravana Adigal, to, 14I-I49 ;
Kayaisaiidikai, ISO ; receives alms
from Adirai, 152 ; at the prison
house, 158-160; assumes the form
of Kayagandikai, 161 ; at Mani-
pallavam, 173-4, 180-186 ; at Vanji,
186-189 ; philosophical discourses
at, 189-199 ; receives teaching of
Buddhism by Aravana Adigal,
204-229.
Manimekhahiitufavu, 2.
Manipailavam, 19, 130, 131, 163, 165,
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 199.
Manmukha, 148.
Markali, Gosala, 55, 194, 194w.
Marutavega and Sutamati, 118, 122,
• 131. • ‘
Maruti, 167.
Mavan Killi = Nedumudi Killi, 18,
35, 36, 159.
Maya, 165.
N
Naganadu, 133, !J7, 204,
Nagapura, 180.
Nagarjuna and Rattan, relative posi-
tion of, 101 ; and Mahayana, 102.
Nagas, 150, 151.
Narasimhacharya, views of, on Dig-
• naga, 100.
Narkirar, on Pavattiri, 49.
JSfhvakadir ^ 55,
Netjumudi Ki}li, 18.
30
Nedu-vel-killi, 204 .
Nerivayil, 35!
Nidanas, 178f.
Niganta, system of, 55.
^^^^3.ntha, 55, teaching of, 195,
Ninjatia, 166.
ISfyayadvara, Chinese translation of,
97, 108-1 10.
Nyayapravesa, Tiibianski on, 108-
UO; the authorship of the, 108-110 ;
Tibetan translation of Mironov on,
109, 110 ; relation to Nydyadvara .
98, 109-110.
O
Ori, of the Kollimalais, 42, 44.
P
Padapankayamalai = Grdhrakuta
136,142.
Padirrupattii, 94.
Pandya, kingdom of, 146.
Paranar, 94.
Para§arya Vyasa, 90.
Para.^urama, 49, 167.
Pattinappdlai, description of Puhar
in, 35.
Pavattiri, Reddipalem, 48.
Penmikadaiy reference to foreign
people in, 53.
Perumkappiyara, requirements of,
Pllivalai, Naga princess, 19, 37, 177,
I85.‘
Pitaka of the Buddha, relation to
Rattan’s teaching to, 104.
Podiyil, connection with Agastya,
28, 153 ; situation of, 1S3«. ^
Prabhakara, 61.
Prabhdvakachariia^ 94.
Pradhyota, 149. ^
Pradhyumna, 29.
Prmnhnasamucchaya Vriti, 10^, 110.
Prapanchahrdayjiy 59, 59w.
Punyaraja of Nagapura, 180.
Purushartas, 1.
Rahula, 133, 135, 164, lf*4. mm
Rama, reference to causeway of,
153.
Ramagiri, hill of, 47.
RSmdyana, referred to incidents in
Manimekhalai, 28, 30.
Ratnadipa, 135, 138.
Ravivarma, 131,136.
Rudran, %nnan, 35 ; contemporary
J f Eariklla, 38.#
'hi) 24 . ^ m ,
%
%
0
# •
234
manimEkhalai
s
& ab firas vam in , 60 .
SrxahuM<karan, 135, 140, 166, 15L
gatlnvan, 150, 151, 152.
Saivavadi, 192.
grili, 143, 144.
JSamanoU, lull of, 200.
Samantakuta, 138. ,
Samudragtipta, period of, 79.
San gam works, 11.
Saiigama, 187.
Saughadharma, 123.
^ankarasvamin, source of teaching, |
96, 97 ; relation to Dignaga’s tea- i
ching, 98.
Sankarshana, 60.
Sankhya, i96f.
Sanskrit culture, elements of, in
Manimekhalai, 26-34.
Sautrantika, 104.
Sarasvati, 145. -
SarvastivMin, Karma phenomeno-
logy of, 81, 83.
Sautrantika, foiin of Buddhism in
Manimeklialai, 85, 104.
Satta’n, 8, 9; ref . to in Tiruvalliiva-
malai, 10 ; as a critic, 10 ; contem-
poraneity of with Senguttiivan , 94 ;
teaching of, 94if ; Jacobi on, claim
to anteriority 105.
Savakam, 21, 25.
gavakam, 147 ; king of, 149, 165, 182,
, 199.
Sedi, 153.
Senguttuvan, 9 ; contemporary of,
with Sattan, 106, 189.
Ship coins, 49.
..'•^ilappadhikaram, 2 ; subject-matter
of, 5-7 ; affinity to Manimekhalai,
7, 9, 12; historical character of, 17;
Adwarkunallar on the sub-divi-
sioHs of, 16.
^ilas, according to Buddhists, 117,
225n.
Singapuram, 187.
girtti, 18.
Sirupanarrupadai; 36.
^i yapr aka’ga^vami , 11.
SkanShas, exposition of, 82, 83.
Somadeva, 30.
Sonagaram, 29,
gri Bhashya, on the Bodhayana
Vrtti, 87.
§vngil 144.
Sthaviravada, 84, 104.
Sucharitamigra, 65.
Sudukattu Kottam ==« Oqtakravala
Kottam, 12Sf . » ^
Sugata « Buddlm^Qhaitya to, 201.
Sutainati, 112, 117 ; adventure of, 118-
9, 120 ; 121; history of, '»2-3, 129,
130, 131, 136, 178,204.
SutJuparvn, 206. ^
T
Tagacjilr, Adiyaman of,44.
Tarai, 131, 136.
Tildttama, 145.
Tiraiyan, 48. _
Tirii-Karikkarai, 45, 46, 47 ; identi-
fication of, 48. ^
Tirukovilur, Malayaman I^ri of, 42.,
Tiruvalluvar, 168«. c.
Tivatjlakai, 112, 165,
Tivatilakai and Manimekhalai 138
^ -139, 140 ; temple constructed for,
203.
Tondaiman Ilam-Tirayar , birth of,
37,“ 19, 106. ‘
Truths, four kinds of, 228, 229.
Tusbita, Heaven of, 142.
Tush ital oka, 221.
Tuvadikan, 165, 201.
U
Udayakuniara, 120; at the Crystal-
chamber, 121, 129, 135, 156, 158,
161, 162, 164.
Uddyotakara and Sattan, 103.
Ui., H., on Nyayadvara and Nyaya-
pravE^a, 109.
Ujjain, 30, 149.
Upavarsha 61, 62, 63; Keith on, 66w,
Uraiyur = Urandai, 35,36.
Uttara Maga'dha, 166.
V
Vachaspati Migra, 109.
Vaduh avail, East and West, 46.
Vaigeshika, 197. ^
Vaitnlya conti*oversy, 102. ^
Vajrayiidha, Temple of, 114.
Vaiai Vanan, 39, 177.
Vaiayapati, 1.
Vaiidvaram = Karikkarai. ^
Vamanavatara, ref. to ia Silappdhi-
karam, p. 30.
Vanji, 7, 20, 21, 22, 51, 165, 199.
Varahamihira, 52.
Varanasi, 143.
Va^amayilai, 177.
Vasantamala, 112, 1!6, 117.
Vasantavai, 172.
Vasishta, 145. ^
Vasu, 187.
Vasubandhu, and Akshapada, posi-
tion of, 99, 79, 100, 101; age of, 79.
INDEX
235
Vatsyayana, school of, 79.
Vayananifodu, 143.
Vedavyasa, views of Jacobi on, 86,
189.
VedavSftii, 192.
Velver Killi, 18.
K/rfw, nature of, 228.
Vidyabhushaja, 109.
Vidyadharas, introdxiction of, in
Manimekhalai, 24.
Vijaya, 189.
Vindhyavasini, Goddess, 162.
Virai, 1131, 136, 140.
•Vigakai,l65, 170, 171.
Vishflupurana, 29.
ViSvamitra, referred to in Mani*
mekhalai, 30, 139.
Vrnchi, 144.
Vri§chjka, 153.
Vrttikara, Jacobi on, 62; Jha on,
62 ; Keith on, 62 ; identity of, 62.
Y
Yaugandharayana, 30, 31 ; reference
in, 149,
Y aSodharanagara, 136.
Yavana, carpenters from, 159.
Yen-shu, 84.
Yogachara Phil, of Buddhism, 79.
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR
Ancient India* (Out of print and under revision;) ^
Beginnings of Sotith Indian History* (Out of print and under
revision.)
A little Known Chapter ol VIjayanagar History* (With jthe
author.)
Early History of Vaishnavism in South India. (Oxford Ihiiver-
sity Press.) ^
• ' •
South India and Her Muhanifiiadari Invaders. (Oxford Univer-
sity Press.) 0
f
A Source Book of Hindu India. In two parts. (By Messrs. K.
and J. Cooper, Bombay.)
A Short History of Hindu India. Conipanion to the above. (By
the same publishers.)
Contributions of South India to Indian Culture. (Caleutta Uni-
versity publication.)
Works Edited for the University
Sources of Vijayanagar History. By A. Raiigaswami Sarasvati,
B.A. (At the University.)
History of the Nayaks of Madura. By R. vSatyanath,a Aiyar, m.a,,
L.B. (At the University.)
A ' His|ory ,of the Pallavas of Kanchi, By R. (jopalan, m.a.
{/tp the press.) ^
Administrative and Political Institutions of the Hindus. By
V. R. Ramachandra Dikshifcar, M.A., dip ., ecom. {In the press.)
ChrwMogicSl History' of South India. By the late Mr. Robert
Sewell, {hi the press I)
Other Publications
Jouveau-Dubreuil’s Djavidian Architecture. (English Edi-.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11